(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "International law discussions, 1903"

r&i 






. 



a|» 




AL LAW DISCUSSIONS. 1903 



lU 









NAVAL WAR CODE OF 1900 



«££« rap 

vOOw v*.".*J w^v*. 











'uewtjft A*r /7. /f#l/ 





NAVAL WAR COLLEGE 



INTERNATIONAL LAW DISCUSSIONS. 1903 



THE UNITED STATES 
NAVAL WAR CODE OF 1900 



APPENDICES 

CONTAINING 

THE UNITED STATES NAVAL WAR CODE, 1900. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE 
UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, 1863. 

HAGUE CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CUS- 
TOMS OF WAR ON LAND, 1899. 

HAGUE CONVENTION FOR THE ADAPTATION TO MARITIME 
WARFARE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE GENEVA CONVEN- 
TION OF AUGUST 22, 1864, 1899. 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1904 



PREFACE. 



The discussion of the United States Naval War Code, 1900, during 
the summer of 1903, was carried on with the assistance of Mr. 
George Grafton Wilson, professor in Brown University, by the 
staff of the college and a large body of active officers of long 
experience. The discussion should be considered with reference to 
the explanation set forth on pages 11 and 12. 

The discussion resulted in a recommendation that the Code be 
withdrawn, and accordingly this has been done by the Navy Depart- 
ment's General Order No. 150, February 4, 1904. 

C. S. SPERRY. 
Captain, U. S. N. , President. 
U. S. Naval War College, 
Newport, R. I., 

February 9, 1904. 

(3) 



COXTE1STTS. 



introductory. Page. 

The preparation of the Code 5 

Opinions upon the Code 7 

Nature of the discussions for 1903 n 

DISCUSSIONS. 

Explanation 13 

Section I.— Hostilities: 

Article 1. Hostile measures 19 

Kevised form 17 

2. Area of maritime warfare 18 

3. Military measures 19 

Canals, other public works . 20 

Launching of projectiles from balloons 22 

4. Bombardment open towns 23 

5. Submarine telegraphic cables 27 

In the high seas 28 

Conclusions 35 

6. Seizure of neutral vessels 36 

7. Use of false colors 37 

Conclusions 42 

8. Beprisals 12 

Section II.— Belligerents: 

Article 9. Armed forces 14 

10. Personnel 45 

Treatment 46 

11. Captured private vessels 48 

12. Military occupation 50 

Section III.— Belligerent and neutral vessels: 

Article 13. Public vessels 51 

14. Private vessels S3 

Coast fishing vessels 53 

15. Private vessels sailing, etc., prior to declaration of war 54 

Questions in regard to 57 

Opinion of committee on 63 

16. Enemy service 65 

17. Asylum for vessels of war 65 

18. Kegulation of asylum 66 

19. Freedom of neutral vessel 67 

20. Dispatches, mail service, etc 68 

Unneutral service 68 

Section IV.— Hospital ships— the shipwrecked, sick, and wounded: 

Articles 21-29. Hospital ships— the shipwrecked, sick, and wounded— 71 

Conclusions 77 

Section V.— The exercise of the right of search: 

Article 30. Convoy 77 

31. Visit or search 78 

32. Boarding 80 

33. Causes for visit 81 

Section VI.— Contraband of war: 

Articles 34-36. Bules for 82 

Section VIL— Blockade: 

Articles 37-45. Begulations 83 

Section VIII.— The pending in of prizes: 

Articles 46-50. I*, , tlations 87 

Section IX.— Armistice, truce, and capitulations ; violations of laws of war: 

Articles 51-55. General rules 88 

Summary of general conclusions 89 

Summary of suggested changes in Code 91 

APPENDICES. 

L— The United States Naval War Code of 1900 101 

II.— Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in 

the field 115 

III.— Hague Convention with Bespect to the Laws and Customs of War 

on Land. 1899 141 

IV.— Hague Convention for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the 

Principles of the Geneva Convention of August 22, 1864. 1899 159 

(4) 



INTRODUCTORY. 



THE PREPARATION OF THE CODE. 

The publication of a code to determine the course of action in 
maritime war is in itself an act significant of the progress that has 
been made in recent years in the conduct of hostilities. The issue 
of such a code by the United States in 1900 is in accord with the 
precedent set in the publication in 1863 of rules prepared by Dr. 
Lieber for the government of armies in the field. This codification 
of rules for the regulation of land warfare by Dr. Lieber was fol- 
lowed by such regulations as those of the Geneva Convention of 
October 30, 1868, the Declaration of Brussels of 1874, the Oxford 
Resolutions of 1880, and other later rules pertaining to the conduct 
of war upon land. 

These rules for warfare upon the sea were prepared by Capt. 
Charles H. Stockton, U. S. N., in accordance with an order of the 
Secretary of the Navy, made in 1899, while Captain Stockton was 
president of the Naval War College. He was requested to draw 
up a set of rules which should serve for the Navy the purpose 
which the rules drawn up by Dr. Lieber served in the Army. Cap- 
tain Stockton consulted with various officers of the Navy and also 
with several civilians who were interested in maritime international 
law. 

The preliminary draft of the code prepared in the main by Captain 
Stockton was sent out with the following memorandum: 

The regulations respecting the laws and usages of war at sea, a 
preliminary draft of which is herewith forwarded, are proposed, 
primarily, to be put in force for the Navy of the United States. For 
that reason, and on account of our existing laws in regard to pri- 
vateers and the capture of enemy merchant vessels, the articles 
relating to privateers and letters of marque, and to the capture and 
destruction of private property at sea, are included in the code. 

If the code should be presented to other countries as an inter- 
national projet, it is presumed that these articles would be omitted 
or modified, in view of our adherence to the Declaration of Paris 
during the late war and of the stand, as to the capture of private 
property at sea, taken by the President of the United Stat<> in a 
recent message and in his instructions to our representatives at The 
Hague Conference. 

The regulations for the laws of war upon land, adopted at The 
Hague Conference, cover a number of subjects that are applicable 
to the naval service afloat and ashore, such as those "bearing upon 

(5) 



6 

matters of prisoners, spies, military occupation, etc., and hence 
these matters are not included in the Naval Code, which extends, by 
Article 55, the authority of the laws of war to the naval service, 
when applicable and when not in conflict with the proposed Naval 
Code. These regulations for land warfare, as adopted at The Hague, 
accompany this memorandum and have been adhered to by the 
United States, but are not yet in force for the Army of the United 
States, though it is presumed that, after submission to and confirma- 
tion by the Senate, they will be duly promulgated and authorized. 

I am informed unofficially by the Judge- Advocate General of the 
Army that the present, or "Lieber Code" (General Order No. 100), 
now in force, will in all probability be incorporated or amalgamated, 
where possible, with The Hague Regulations. 1 

The Geneva-Hague additional articles for the amelioration of 
warfare at sea, on the lines of the Geneva Convention, have been 
incorporated in the Naval Code, with the exception of Article 3, 
which is omitted, and of Article 6, which is modified. The presence 
of these two articles prevented the adoption of the additional 
articles, as a whole, by the representatives of the United States. It 
is believed that the possibilities of the South African war have 
justified Captain Mahan's views as to Article 3. 2 If it had been a 
maritime war we might have seen sympathetic neutral hospital 
ships of different countries arrayed on opposite sides, and even hos- 
pital ships of the same neutral country so opposed, in accordance 
with the sympathies of the contributors. Probably from the United 
States would have come two or more antagonistic hospital ships, 
fitted out by sympathizers having opposing opinions as to the merits 
of the war. It can readily be imagined what confusion and compli- 
cations might follow — all the articles would have been discredited. 

It is believed also, by the proposed modification of Article 6, that 
the danger of a repetition of the Deerhound affair, in the Kearsarge- 
Alabama fight, would be avoided in the future. The phraseology 
of these articles given in the two official translations (English and 
American) is retained wherever the translations do not conflict. 

In addition to the manifest advantages of a formulation and crys- 
tallization of the laws and usages of naval war (a work that has 
never before been attempted, it is believed, by any other nation), it 
is also hoped that this code will tend toward the amelioration of the 
hardships of naval warfare in general, and more particularly in the 
following respects: 

1. By the adoption of all that is of practical value to be found in 
the additional articles proposed at The Hague to extend the articles 
of the Geneva Convention to maritime warfare. 

2. By restricting to narrow limits the bombardment of unfortified 
and undefended towns. 

3. By forbidding bombardment as a means of levying a ransom 
upon undefended towns. 

4. By forbidding the use of false colors. 

5. By forbidding reprisals in excess of the offense calling for them. 

6. By exempting coast fishing vessels from capture, where inno- 
cently employed. 

7. By incorporating the liberal allowances for vessels of the enemy 
at the outbreak of war, and for blockaded vessels, given in the 
General Order No. 492, of 1898, of the Navy Department. 

8. By providing definitely that free ships make free goods. 

9. By giving all the exemption possible to mail steamers in time 
of war. 

1 Laws and Customs of War ou Land proclaimed by President, April 11, 1902. 

2 Rolls, " Peace Conference at The Hague," p. 498. 



10. By exempting neutral convoys from the right of search. 

11. By promulgating the general classification of contraband of 
war in such a manner as to make an international adoption of the 
general principles possible. 

12. By authorizing the use of the regulations for land warfare, 
whenever applicable, to the naval service of the United States. 
This has not been officially done heretofore. 

I am, very respectfully, 

C. H. STOCKTON, 
Captain, U. S. Navy, 
President Naval War College. 

These points and many others were considered and several tenta- 
tive drafts of the code were made. These were subjected to the 
criticism of various officers of the Navy and to several other persons 
outside the Navy. Captain Stockton's untiring labor in the prepara- 
tion of this valuable compilation deserves high recognition. 

The code was finally issued in accord with General Orders No. 551, 
Navy Department, Washington, June 27, 1900, which states: 

" The following code of naval warfare, prepared for the guidance 
and use of the naval service by Capt. Charles H. Stockton, United 
States Navy, under direction of the Secretary of the Navy, having 
been approved by the President of the United States, is published 
for the use of the Navy and for the information of all concerned. 

"John D. Long, Secretary." 

OPINIONS UPON THE CODE. 

The issue of the code very quickly called forth expressions of 
opinion from foreign sources, though not especially widely men- 
tioned in the United States. It has been translated several times 
and has been made the subject of both practical and academic dis- 
cussion. The following are examples of expression of opinion from 
English sources: 

(From London Times, Friday, April 5, 1901.) 
A NAVAL WAR CODE. 

From a Naval Correspondent. 

There has been recently issued to the officers of the United States 
Navy a compact handbook of twenty-seven pages and fifty-five arti- 
cles comprising laws and usages of war at sea. As the work is quite 
unknown in England, and as it includes a great deal of matter that 
must affect the policy of other nations, it is proposed to summarize 
briefly in this article some of its most salient features. In the first 
place, we are concerned as to the official sanction to laws given in the 
general order prefacing the handbook, informing us that it is "Pre- 
pared for the guidance and use of the naval service, by Capt. Charles 
H. Stockton, under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, having 
been approved by the President of the United States." 

There has of late been some discussion as to the measures that 
may be adopted in dealing with an opponent under the assumption, 
recognized in this handbook, that the object of war is to procure 
complete submission at the earliest possible period, with the li 
expenditure of life and property. The proceedings of General 
Sheridan and others in the civil war have been frequently referred 



8 

to; and it may be of interest if we quote from this handbook a few 
passages dealing with this question. Articles 3, 4, 8, and 12 set 
forth that: 

Military necessity permits measures that are indispensable for 
securing the ends of the war and that are in accordance with modern 
laws and usages of war. 

It does not permit wanton devastation, use of poison, or the doing 
of any hostile act that would make the return of peace unnecessarily 
difficult. 

Noncombatants are to be spared in person and property during 
hostilities, as much as the necessities of war and the conduct of such 
noncombatants will permit. * * * 

The bombardment by a naval force of unfortified and undefended 
towns, villages, or buildings is forbidden, except when such bom- 
bardment is incidental to the destruction of military or naval estab- 
lishments, public depots of munitions of war, or vessels of war in 
port, or unless reasonable requisitions for provisions and supplies, 
essential at the time to such naval vessel, or vessels, are forcibly 
withheld, in which case due notice of bombardment shall be given. 

The bombardment of unfortified or undefended towns and places 
for the nonpayment of ransom is forbidden. 

In the event of an enemy failing to observe the laws and usages 
of war, if the offender is beyond reach, resort may be had to reprisals 
if such action should be considered a necessity; but due regard must 
always be had to the duties of humanity. Reprisals should not 
exceed in severity the offense committed, and must not be resorted 
to when the injury complained of has been repaired. 

If the offender is within the power of the United States he can be 
punished, after due trial, by a properly constituted military or naval 
tribunal. Such offenders are liable to the punishments specified by 
the criminal law. 

The United States of America acknowledge and protect, in hostile 
countries occupied by their forces, religion and morality; the persons 
of the inhabitants, especially those of women; and the sacredness of 
domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary shall be rigorously 
punished. 

In the columns of the Times during the Spanish- American War, 
there occurred an interesting controversy concerning the position of 
submarine cables in war. Professor Holland's views that a cable 
going from a belligerent's territory to a neutral was only liable 
under international usage to be cut within the belligerent's terri- 
torial waters, were regarded at the time as rather academic. They 
are reenforced by Article 5 of the American War Code, which lays 
down that — 

The following rules are to be followed with regard to submarine 
telegraphic cables in time of war, irrespective of their ownership: 

(a) Submarine telegraphic cables between points in the territory 
of an enemy, or between the territory of the United States and that 
of an enemy, are subject to such treatment as the necessities of war 
may require. 

(b) Submarine telegraphic cables between the territory of an 
enemy and neutral territory may be interrupted within the terri- 
torial jurisdiction of the enemy. 

(c) Submarine telegraphic cables between two neutral territories 
shall be inviolable and free from interruption. 

There is a point of controversy as to what is contraband of war. 
The Naval War Code divides contraband of war into what is abso- 
lutely contraband and what is conditionally contraband. The first 
class includes the general kinds of war equipments all set forth at 
length; but as these are generally recognized as contraband there is 



9 

no use in repeating the list. The "conditionally contraband" 
includes: 

(a) Coal, when destined for a naval station, a port of call, or a 
ship or ships of the enemy. 

(6) Materials for the construction of railways or telegraph. 

(c) Money, when such material or money are destined for the 
enemy's forces. 

(d) Provisions, when actually destined for the enemy's military or 
naval forces. 

It is interesting to note that the inoffensive mule, which has proved 
so useful to us in South Africa, figures last of the long list of " abso- 
lutely contraband," and that the list is binding on American naval 
officers "until otherwise announced." In another paragraph we 
are informed that " in case of war, the articles ^hat are conditionally 
and unconditionally contraband, when not specifically mentioned in 
treaties previously made and in force, will be duly announced in a 
public manner." 

A number of minor points are dealt with, such as use of false 
colors being forbidden and the rule that national colors must be 
displayed before firing a gun. Article 14 lays down that " all mer- 
chant vessels of the enemy, except coast-fishing vessels innocently 
employed, are subject to capture, unless exempt by previous stipula- 
tions." The merchant vessels may be destroyed if thought fit, the 
passengers being landed at a convenient port at the first opportunity. 
It is curious to note that, though constant reference is made to 
neutral vessels, the code gives no index as to how the United States 
is prepared to recognize transfers of shipping to neutral flags. 

Section V deals with the exercise of the right of search, which is 
confined to properly commissioned and authorized vessels of war, 
convoys of neutrals being exempt on the commander of the con- 
voys being able to give proper assurances. The right of search is 
universally recognized as necessary to a belligerent to enable it to 
ascertain the nationality of a vessel for the purpose of preventing 
breaches of blockade, and in other circumstances to seize vessels 
employed in any capacity for the enemy except that of carrying 
goods which are not contraband of war. 

Further actions justifying seizure are: 

1. Atteihpt to avoid search by escape; but this must be clearly 
evident. 

2. Resisting search with violence. 

3. Presenting fraudulent papers. 

4. Vessels not being supplied with the necessary papers to establish 
the object of search. 

5. If papers are destroyed, defaced, or concealed. 

How far our own naval officers or the foreign office could justify 
the seizure of the German ships for which we had to pay compensa- 
tion, under any of the above heads, is a matter of pure conjecture. 
It may, however, be confidently predicted that their task is not ren- 
dered easier by leaving so much to common sense which it is unwise 
to assume too confidently will be found in the right place at the 
right time. In the absence of any teaching on international law, 
except for a few lectures to some fortunate captains and commanders 
at the Royal Naval College, the least that might be done is to afford 
them such aid as the American Navy Department does to its own 
officers. This little code of laws deserves to be noted as another 
product of the United States Naval War College, to which we owe 
Captain Mahan's work on sea power; while in comparison Great 
Britain is content to spend £200 per annum on a naval strategy 
course, which includes a lecture on naval history, fee of £5 a lecture. 
Small wonder that in such circumstances the field produces so little, 



10 

and the official representative of the Admiralty informs the House 
that his sympathies are with the hostile critics of the naval educa- 
tional system on this question of the higher training of the Navy. 

A few days later there appeared from the distinguished British 
authority on international law, Professor Holland, the following 
letter: 

(From London Times, Wednesday, April 10, 1901.) 
THE UNITED STATES NAVAL WAR CODE. 

To the Editor of the Times: 

Sir: The " Naval War Code " of the United States, upon which an 
interesting article appeared in the Times of Friday last, is so well 
deserving of attention in this country that I may perhaps be allowed 
to supplement the remarks of your correspondent from the results of 
a somewhat minute examination of the code made shortly after its 
publication. 

One notes, in the first place, that the Government of the United 
States does not shirk responsibility. It puts the code into the hands 
of its officers ' ' for the government of all persons attached to the naval 
service," and is doubtless prepared to stand by the rules contained in 
it, as being in accordance with international law. These rules deal 
boldly with even so disagreeable a topic as "Reprisals" (Art. 8), 
upon which the Brussels, and after it The Hague, Conference pre- 
ferred to keep silence ; and they take a definite line on many questions 
upon which there are wide differences of opinion. On most debata- 
ble points the rules are in accordance with the views of this country, 
e. g. , as to the right of search (Art. 22) , as to the twofold list of con- 
traband (Art. 34-36) , as the moment at which the liability of a block- 
ade runner commences (Art. 44) , and as to the capture of private 
property (Art. 14), although the prohibition of such capture has long 
been favored by the Executive of the United States, and was advo- 
cated by the American delegates at The Hague Conference. So also 
Articles 34—36, by apparently taking for granted the correctness of 
the rulings of the Supreme Court in the civil- war cases of the Spring- 
bok and the Peterhoff with reference to what may be described as 
"continuous carriage," are in harmony with the views which Lord 
Salisbury recently had occasion to express as to the trade of the 
Biuidesrath and other German vessels with Lourenco Marques. It 
must be observed, on the other hand, that Article 30 flatly contra- 
dicts the British rule as to convoy; while Article 3 sets out The Hague 
Declaration as to projectiles dropped from balloons, to which this 
country is not a party. Article 7 departs from received views by pro- 
hibiting altogether the use of false colors, and Article 14 (doubtless 
in pursuance of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Pa- 
quete Habana) by affirming the absolute immunity of coast fishing 
vessels, as such, from capture. 

On novel questions the code is equally ready with a solution. It 
speaks with no uncertain voice on the treatment of mail steamers and 
mail bags (Art. 20) . On cable-cutting it adopts in Article 5, as your 
correspondent points out, the views which I ventured to maintain in 
your columns when the question was raised during the war of 1 898. 
I may also, by the way, claim the support of the code for the view 
taken by me, in a correspondence also carried on in your columns 
during the naval maneuvers of 1888, of the bombardment of open 
'coast towns. Article 4 sets out substantially the rules upon this sub- 
ject, for which I secured the imprimatur of the Institut de Droit Inter- 
national in 1896. 

Secondly, the code is so well brought up to date as to incorporate 
(Articles 21 to 29) the substance of The Hague Convention, ratified 



11 

only in September last, for applying to maritime warfare the prin- 
ciples of the Convention of Geneva. Article 10 of The Hague Con- 
vention has been reproduced in the code in forgetfulness, perhaps, of 
the fact that that article has not been ratified. 

Thirdly, the code contains very properly some general provisions 
applicable equally to warfare upon land (Arts. 1, 3, 8, 12, and 54). 

Fourthly, it is clearly expressed, and it is brief, consisting of only 
54 articles, occupying 22 pages. 

Fifthly, it deals with two very distinct topics, viz, the mode of 
conducting hostilities against the forces of the enemy, and the prin- 
ciples applicable to the making prize of merchant vessels, which as 
often as not may be the property of neutrals. These topics are by 
no means kept apart as they might be, articles on prize appearing 
unexpectedly in the section avowedly devoted to hostilities. 

It is worth considering wmether something resembling the United 
States Code would not be found useful in the British Navy. Our 
code might be better arranged than its predecessor, and would differ 
from it on certain questions, but should resemble it in clearness of 
expression, in brevity, and, above all things, in frank acceptance of 
responsibility. What naval men most want is definite guidance, 
in categorical language, upon those points of maritime international 
law upon which the government has made up its own mind. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

T. E. HOLLAND. 

Oxford, April 8. 

NATURE OF THE DISCUSSIONS FOR 1903. 

While it is true that the Naval War Code of the United States 
was issued only three years ago, yet the nature of the subject and 
the development of maritime international law and practice make 
it a tcpic worthy of the most careful consideration at the present 
time, when so much thought is given to naval affairs in their inter- 
national relations. It has been considered advisable that the Naval 
War Code of 1900 be made the basis of the conferences in inter- 
national law for the session of the United States Naval War Col 1 
for the summer of 1903. 

In the original preparation of the code, certain debatable points 
were submitted and opinions upon them asked. These were as 
follows: 

1. Prohibition of bombardment of open or unfortified towns on 
seacoast. 

2. Adoption of additional articles of Geneva Convention as for- 
mulated at The Hague, with the exception of Article 6 and the addi- 
tion of a proviso to No. 3, that all neutral hospital ships shall, 
before and during action, attach themselves to one belligerent or the 
other and be subject to its regulations and fly its flag at the main, 
with red cross underneath. 

3. Prohibition of use of false colors by men-of-war at any time. 

4. The abolition of the jus angariae or seizure of neutral vessels 
or property for war purposes, except in the case of overpowering 
military necessity. 

5. Exemption of fishing boats and fishermen: fish In be paid for if 
seized as a military necessity. 



12 

6. The exercise of the right of inquiry upon neutral men-of-war 
approaching a blockade or investment. If false colors were uni- 
versally prohibited this would not be necessary. 

7. Ransom of unfortified towns: If refused, the penalty. Should 
it be forbidden? 

8. Should such a status as war rebel be further recognized ? Vide 
Lieber's G. O. 100, Inst, to Armies, etc. 

9. Is a collier attending a fleet of an enemy guilty of unneutral 
service or only of carriage of contraband of war? Should vessel and 
cargo be both seized? 

10. Should a continuous-voyage liability be applied to vessels 
carrying goods that are contraband or presumably for the violation 
of blockade ? 

11. Should multiplied retaliation be severely prohibited, i. e., the 
shooting or hanging of more than one for one, etc.? 

The code has not been tested by actual war; therefore, precedents 
which it might be desirable to maintain for the sake of strenghten- 
ing the code itself have not been established. The code can there- 
fore be considered without prejudice which might be favorable to 
a rule that had already become strengthened through action in 
accordance with it, or found unsatisfactory or insufficient when 
tried in action. 

The points for discussion which have been raised are based upon 
material furnished by officers of the Navy, by students of interna- 
tional law, by critics and writers who have given attention to the 
code in America and in Europe. 

The English, French, and Italians have thus far paid most atten- 
tion to the code. So far as possible their queries and criticisms are 
embodied in the discussions. The changes which may be desirable 
in consequence of development and changes naturally coming with 
the passage of time are also to be considered. 

The points proposed for discussion seem in some instances trivial, 
but all are based on criticisms or questions that have come from per- 
sons or from other sources of sufficient weight to deserve consider- 
ation. It was also judged expedient to introduce so many as possible 
of these points upon which questions had been raised, in order that 
the code might be viewed as widely as the time limits of the discus- 
sions would permit. 



INTERNATIONAL LAW DISCUSSIONS, 

1903. 



THE UNITED STATES NAVAL WAR CODE OF 1900. 

EXPLANATION. 

In the following pages the article or articles of the 
Naval War Code npon which questions are raised or 
upon which discussions are based will in each case pre- 
cede the questions and discussions. The code as a whole 
will be found at the end of the discussions, on pages 
101-11-4. On the pages following the code will be found 
the Instructions for the government of armies of the 
United States in the field, pages 115-139; Convention 
between the United States of America and certain 
powers with respect to the laws and customs of war on 
land (Hague Convention, proclaimed by the United 
States April 11, 1903), pages 141-158; Convention for 
the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of 
the Geneva Convention of August 22, 1804 (proclaimed 
by the United States November 1, 1901), pages 159-167. 

DISCUSSIONS. 
Section I. — Hostilities. 

Article 1. 

The general object of war is to procure the complete 
submission of the enemy at the earliest possible period, 
with the least expenditure of life and property. 

The special objects of maritime war are: The capture 
or destruction of the military and naval forces of the 
enemy; of his fortifications, arsenals, dry docks, and 
dockyards; of his various military and naval establish- 
ments, and of his maritime commerce: to prevent his 

(13) 



14 

procuring war material from neutral sources; to aid 
and assist military operations on land, and to protect 
and defend the national territory, property, and sea- 
borne commerce. 

(a) Would it be advisable to insert in Article 1 after 
line 3 as the clause beginning line 4 the words, ' ' The 
general object of maritime war is to deprive the enemy 
of the use of the sea?" 

The question in regard to the insertion of the words 
"The general object of maritime war is to deprive the 
enemy of the use of the sea" is raised in consequence of 
the position taken by certain French writers. Logically, 
there might be a statement of (l) the general object of 
all war, (2) the general object of the phase of war of 
which the code treats, (3) the special object of mari- 
time war. Granting this arrangement, would the clause 
cover the objects of maritime war at the present time? 
Would it cover those measures which might be taken to 
inflict injury upon land defenses, etc. ; or the measures 
to cooperate with the army in various ways ? 

In the first half of the nineteenth century the object 
of maritime war was for the most part to deprive the 
enemy of the use of the sea, but with the increase in the 
use of steam, the lengthening range of guns, etc. , there 
has come an enlargement of the field of maritime con- 
trol and of the range of objects at which it aims. 

The general object of maritime war is not different 
from the general object of war as a whole. The field of 
operations is somewhat restricted, however. , "The cap- 
ture or destruction of the military and naval forces of the 
enemy; of his fortifications, arsenals, dry docks, and 
dockyards ; of his various military and naval establish- 
ments, and of his maritime commerce; to prevent his 
procuring war material from neutral sources ; to aid and 
assist military operations on land, and to protect and 
defend the national territory, property, and sea-borne 
commerce," are stated as the objects of maritime war. 
Yet some of these acts are no more the objects of mari- 
time war in themselves than the killing of individuals 
in uniform is the object of land warfare. These measures 



15 

are such, as are allowed with view to attaining the sub- 
mission of the enemy. The destruction of a fortification 
or of commerce is not in itself the object of war, but 
merely a means to attain the object, and by the first sec- 
tion of this article should be reduced to the minimum, 
i. e., there should be "the least expenditure of life and 
property." 

It is important to distinguish the object from the 
justifiable means of attaining the object. There is a 
growing tendency to penalize the nation which mistakes 
the means for the end. Certain measures may be used 
as contributory to the general object of war. Of course \ 
it will be difficult at times to determine what is contribu- 
tory, but action that is distinctly not contributory even 
though enumerated among the special objects, may not 
be justifiable, and may be censured. Censure might 
arise in consequence of the destruction of such a struc- 
ture as a privately owned shipyard, provided such 
destruction was not reasonably necessary to the ends of 
the military or naval undertaking, though it might, 
under conceivable circumstances, be of service to the 
enemy. 

The first part of Article 1 might well read: "The 
general object of war is to procure the complete sub- 
mission of the enemy at the earliest possible period with 
the least expenditure of life and property." 

1 ' In maritime operations the usual measures for attai 1 1 - 
ing this object are : The capture or destruction of the 
military and naval forces of the enemy, etc." 

(b) Would a dry dock within hostile territory, owned 
and managed by a private company and sufficiently 
large to receive a ship of war, be liable to the same 
treatment as would fortifications and arsenals ? 

The destruction of a dry dock owned and managed by 
a private company would, from the context, not be 
included in the same class as fortifications and arsenals, 
which are distinctly classed as belonging to the enemy, 
i. e., "of his fortifications, etc." 

While a public dry dock would be liable to capture or 
destruction, a private dry dock does not fall into this 



16 

category until it becomes such as to afford aid to the 
enemy. It may be in itself a commercial undertaking 
of value in peace and not specially designed for war, as 
would be the case of an arsenal or fortification. 

The capture of the privately owned dry dock would 
of course be entirely justifiable at any time as a measure 
of war. The destruction is not justifiable under the 
same provision as that in regard to arsenals and fortifi- 
cations, which are public and by nature adapted for 
war ; but being private, if destruction be permissible at 
all, it must be based on Article 3, which, following the 
majority of authorities, would allow such an act if 
justified by a reasonable military necessity. Article 
XXIII (g) of The Hague Convention, with respect to 
the laws and customs of war on land, prohibits the 
destruction or seizure of " enemy's property unless such 
destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the 
necessities of war." Taylor, in his recent book, Inter- 
national Public Law, page 547, says: " Private property 
according to existing rules is treated even more favora- 
bly than that of the public. Except in extreme cases, 
to be mentioned hereafter, it is both respected and pro- 
tected. At The Hague it was declared that family 
honor and rights, individual lives and private property, 
as well as religious liberty and worship, must be re- 
spected. Private property can not be confiscated. " l 'All 
private property, even that of the individual sovereign, 
is now respected, at least in theory, and booty therein 
is not permitted. As Zacharia expresses it, private prop- 
erty of the enemy can be touched only so far as the 
necessities of war require, for it is part of the war power 
of its country only so far as that country could itself 
exercise dominion over it." 

Of course a commanding officer must himself judge as 
to whether a military necessity exists. To destroy the 
privately owned dry dock, except from military neces- 
sity, would constitute "wanton devastation" forbidden 
by Article 3 of the Naval War Code. 

(c) How would a pleasure yacht be treated under the 
provisions of Article 1 ? 



17 

• This question is raised because Article 25 specifies 
"merchant vessels, yachts, or neutral vessels," seeming 
to create a distinct class. The interpretation that has 
been given to the word "commerce" under the Consti- 
tution would probably be sufficiently wide to include 
pleasure yachts, but not if they are placed in a class by 
themselves. Hence, under Article 1, as interpreted with 
view to Article 25 and some of the earlier articles in 
Section IV as, e. g., Article 14, a pleasure yacht would 
not be included. 

It would therefore have to be captured if at all under 
Article 3, which would be very difficult of application, 
because the proof of military necessity in the capture of 
a pleasure yacht would not be easy and often would be 
impossible. Hence, some provision should be made 
elsewhere in the code for such capture which may be as 
desirable as the capture of a merchant vessel. This will 
be introduced later. 

(d) One further measure for attaining the objects of 
war which is becoming of more and more importance is 
the cutting off of the means of communication between 
the enemy and the outside world. It is therefore de- 
cided that the words "and communications" be added 
after the words ' ' maritime commerce. " To avoid possible 
confusion, it would further be advisable to insert in- 
stead of the words "to aid and assist" the words "to co- 
operate with the Army in" so that the clause would read 
"to cooperate with the Army in military operations on 
land." 

Article 1 as revised would therefore read: 

The general object of war is to procure the complete submission 
of the enemy at the earliest possible period, with the least expendi- 
ture of life and property. 

In maritime operations the usual measures for attaining this object 
are: To capture or destroy the military and naval forces of the 
enemy; his fortifications, arsenals, dry docks, and dockyards; his 
various military and naval establishments, and his maritime com- 
merce and communications; — to prevent his procuring war material 
from neutral sources; — to cooperate with the Army in military 
operations on land, and to protect and defend the national territory, 
property, and sea-borne commerce. 

20681 — 2 



is 

The above form, was agreed upon as covering essential 
amendments provided Article 1 be retained in the code. 
It was, however, the general opinion — 

1. That the article served no essential purpose because 
the general object of war is well known and needs no 
definition and the measures of maritime warfare vary 
with circumstances. 

2. That it might tend to restrict an officer in the ex- 
ercise of Lis functions rather than make these more 
clear to him. 

A majority of the officers in attendance upon the con- 
ference were of the opinion that Article 1 should be 
stricken out entirely. 

Article 2. 

The area of maritime warfare comprises the high seas 
or other waters that are under no jurisdiction, and the 
territorial waters of belligerents. Neither hostilities 
nor any belligerent right, such as that of visitation and 
search, shall be exercised in the territorial waters of 
neutral States. 

The territorial waters of a State extend seaward to the 
distance of a marine league from the low-water mark of 
its coast line. They also include, to a reasonable extent, 
which is in many cases determined by usage, adjacent 
parts of the sea, such as bays, gulfs, and estuaries in- 
closed within headlands; and where the territory by 
which they are inclosed belongs to two or more States, 
the marine limits of such States are usually defined by 
conventional lines. 

How should such a body of water as Long Island Sound 
be regarded under the provisions of Article 2 ? 

This situation does not from the point of view of the 
United States admit of discussion. It is the established 
rule that such waters as Long Island Sound are terri- 
torial waters of the United States. The jurisdiction 
over gulfs and bays having a mouth considerably over 
6 miles wide is still open to difference of opinion. Hall 
briefly summarizes the current opinion as follows : 

In any case the custom of regarding a line three miles from land as 
defining the boundary of marginal territorial waters is so far fixed 
that a state must be supposed to accept it in the absence of express 
notice that a larger extent is claimed. 



19 

The question of the principle upon which the extent of marginal 
waters should be founded and of the breadth of water that should be 
included, has of late attracted a considerable amount of attention. 
It is felt, and growingly felt, not only that the width of three miles is 
insufficient for the safety of the territory, but that it is desirable for a 
state to have control over a larger space of water for the purpose of 
regulating and preserving the fishery in it, the productiveness of sea 
fisheries being seriously threatened by the destructive methods of 
fishing which are commonly employed, and in many places by the 
greatly increased number of fishing vessels frequenting the grounds. 

After being carefully studied and reported upon by a Committee 
of the Institut de Droit International, the subject was exhaustively 
discussed by the Institut at its meeting in Paris, in 1894, the exception- 
ally large number of thirty-nine members being present. With regard 
to the necessity of ascribing a greater breadth than three miles of terri- 
torial water to the littoral state there was no difference of opinion. 
As to the extent to which the marginal belt should be enlarged, and 
the principle upon which enlargement should be based, the same 
unanimity was not manifested, but ultimately it was resolved by a 
large majority that a zone of six marine miles from low- water mark 
ought to be considered territorial for all purposes, and that in time 
of war a neutral state should have the right to extend this zone by 
declaration of neutrality or by notification, for all purposes of 
neutrality, to a distance from the shore corresponding to the extreme 
range of cannon. (International Law, 4th ed., p. 160 and note.) 

Article 3. 

Military necessity permits measures that are indis- 
pensable for securing the ends of the war and that are 
in accordance with modern laws and usages of war. 

It does not permit wanton devastation, the use of 
poison, or the doing of any hostile act that would make 
the return of peace unnecessarily difficult. 

Noncombatants are to be spared in person and prop- 
erty during hostilities, as much as the necessities of war 
and the conduct of such noncombatants will permit. 

The launching of projectiles and explosives from bal- 
loons, or by other new methods of a similar nature, is 
prohibited for a term of five years by the Declaration 
of The Hague, to which the United States became a 
party. This rule does not apply when at war with a 
noncontracting Power. 

(a) In Article 3, line 4, should the clause "the use of 
poison" be stricken out? 

The first clause, "military necessity permits," etc.. 
provides that only such measures shall be used as are 
in accord "with modern laws and usages of war." 



20 

If there is one measure that is fully understood to be 
forbidden by the modern laws and usages of war, it is 
"the use of poison." This is forbidden by all codes. 
(See Hague Convention with respect to the laws and 
customs of war on land, Art. 23.) There is no more 
reason for insertion of "the use of poison " than of many 
other clauses; indeed less, because the use of poison is 
more generally forbidden than almost any other act. 
The clause should therefore be stricken out unless other 
specifications are to be introduced.' 

(b) In the same place, should the following be in- 
serted? "The destruction of great public works pri- 
marily and mainly intended to promote commerce." 

There has been much discussion upon the advisability 
of forbidding the destruction of "great public works 
primarily and mainly intended to promote commerce." 

The Suez Canal already has a quasi neutralization. 
By the Convention of 1888 it was agreed that a system 
should be established to "guarantee at all times, and 
for all the powers, the free use of the Suez maritime 
canal." The articles showing the nature of this agree- 
ment as touching Article 3 of the Naval War Code are 
as follows • 

ARTICLE I. 

The Suez maritime canal shall always be free and open, in time 
of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, 
without distinction of flag. 

Consequently, the high contracting parties agree not in any way 
to interfere with the free use of the canal, in time of war as in time 
of peace. 

The canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of 
blockade. 

ARTICLE IV. 

The maritime canal remaining open in time of war as a free pas- 
sage, even to the ships of war of belligerents, according to the terms 
of Article 1 of the present treaty, the high contracting parties agree 
that no right of war shall be exercised, nor shall any act of hostility, 
or any act having for its object to obstruct the free navigation of 
the canal, be committed in the canal and its ports of access, nor 
within a radius of 3 marine miles from those ports, even though the 
Ottoman Empire should be one of the belligerent powers. 

Vessels of war of belligerents shall not revictual or take in stores 
in the canal and its ports of access, except in so far as may be strictly 



21 

necessary. The transit of the aforesaid vessels through the canal 
shall be effected with the least possible delay, in accordance with 
the regulations in force, and without any other intermission than 
that resulting from the necessities of the service. 

Their stay at Port Said and in the roadstead of Suez shall not ex- 
ceed twenty-four hours, except in case of distress. In such case they 
shall be bound to leave as soon as possible. An interval of twenty- 
four hours shall always elapse between the sailing of a belligerent 
ship from one of the ports of access and the departure of a ship 
belonging to the hostile power. 

ARTICLE V. 

In time of war belligerent powers shall not disembark nor embark 
within the canal and its ports of access either troops, munitions, 
or materials of war. But in case of an accidental hindrance in the 
canal, men may be embarked or disembarked at the ports of access 
by detachments not exceeding 1,000 men, with a corresponding 
amount of war material. 

ARTICLE VI. 

Prizes shall be subject, in all respects, to the same rules as the 
vessels of war of belligerents. 

ARTICLE VII. 

The powers shall not keep any vessel of war in the waters of the 
canal (including Lake Timsah and the Bitter Lakes) . 

Nevertheless, they may station vessels of war in the ports of ac- 
cess of Port Said and Suez, the number of which shall not exceed 
two for each power. 

This right shall not be exercised by belligerents. (Holland. Studies 
in International Law, p. 289.) 

It is proposed to give to the Panama or any similar 
great commercial undertaking exemption because an 
easily inflicted injury might destroy the work of years 
without giving to the belligerent any corresponding 
military advantage, e. g., the breaking of a dam which 
might flood or destroy much of the work on the Panama 
Canal. 

If the United States constructs the canal without any 
provision for neutralization other than that in the Ha\ - 
Pauncefote Treaty of 1901, which is binding on Great 
Britain and the United States, some provision in regard 
to great public works might be desirable, provided other 
nations agree to the same rule. The advisability of an 
international agreement in regard to such great public 



22 

works is admitted, but it would not be advisable for the 
United States to forbid its officers action which other 
states do not deny to their officers. 

Therefore the provisions of this clause as it stands, 
omitting "the use of poison," because that is covered 
by general rules, should stand. 

(c) Under the provisions of the clause beginning 
" Noncombatants are to be spared," etc., should an un- 
armed dispatch boat be treated in any respects differ- 
ently from an armored enemy's vessel; if so, in what 
respect ? 

The vessel is liable to treatment as a vessel engaged 
in the service of the enemy. In respect to the vessel, 
this case falls under the first paragraph of Article 13, 
and in respect to the personnel, under Article 10 of the 
code, which are as follows : 

Art. 13. All public vessels of the enemy are subject to capture, 
except those engaged in purely charitable or scientific pursuits, in 
voyages of discovery, or as hospital ships under the regulations 
hereinafter mentioned. 

Art. 10. The personnel of all public unarmed vessels of the 
enemy, either owned or in his service as auxiliaries, are liable, upon 
capture, to detention as prisoners of war. 

(//) In the application of The Hague rule in regard 
to the launching of projectiles and explosives, what 
would be the effect if an enemy contracting party 
should make an offensive and defensive alliance with 
a noncontracting party ? 

This rule would cease to be binding. This portion of 
the code should read : 

By the Declaration of The Hague, signed July 29, 1899, to which 
the United States is a party, it is provided that: 

The contracting powers agree to prohibit, for a term of five 
years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or 
by other new methods of similar nature. 

The present Declaration is only binding on the contracting pow- 
ers in case of war between two or more of them. 

It shall cease to be binding from the time when in a war between 
the contracting powers one of the belligerents is joined by a non- 
contracting power. 

(e) Should this Hague rule be renewed at the expira- 
tion of the five-year period ? 



23 

The reasons for the limitation of the period to five 
years are shown in the report of The Hague Conference, 
made by the late Mr. Holls : 

On the subject of balloons, the subcommittee first voted a per- 
petual prohibition of their use, or that of similar new machines, for 
throwing projectiles or explosives. In the full committee, on mo- 
tion of Captain Crozier, the prohibition was unanimously limited 
to cover a period of five years only. The action taken was for 
humanitarian reasons alone, and was founded upon the opinion that 
balloons, as they now exist, form so uncertain a means of injury 
that they can not be used with accuracy. The persons or objects 
injured by throwing explosives may be entirely disconnected from 
the conflict, and such that their injury or destruction would be of 
no practical advantage to the party making use of the machines. 
The limitation of the prohibition to five years' duration preserves 
liberty of action under such changed circumstances as may be pro- 
duced by the progress of invention. (The Peace Conference at The 
Hague, p. 95.) 

The reasons that applied at the time of the Peace 
Conference are eqnally valid at the present time ; there- 
fore the article, as cited nnder (d) above, from present 
indications, shonld be renewed. 

Article Jf. 

The bombardment, by a naval force, of unfortified and 
undefended towns, villages, or buildings is forbidden, 
except when such bombardment is incidental to the 
destruction of military or naval establishments, public 
depots of munitions of war, or vessels of war in port, 
or unless reasonable requisitions for provisions and sup- 
plies essential, at the time, to such naval vessel or vessels 
are forcibly withheld, in which case due notice of bom- 
bardment shall be given. 

The bombardment of unfortified and undefended 
towns and places for the nonpayment of ransom is 
forbidden. 

(a) Would it not be more strictly correct and in 
accord with the best opinion so to amend Article 4 as 
to read : 

The bombardment by a naval force of unfortified and undefended 
towns, villages, or buildings is forbidden, though such towns, vil- 
lages, or buildings are liable to the damages incidental to the 
destruction of military or naval establishments, public depots of 
munitions of war, or vessels of war in port, and such towns. 



villages, or buildings are liable to direct bombardment when rea- 
sonable requisitions for provisions and supplies at the time essential 
to the naval force are withheld, in which case due notice of bom- 
bardment shall be given. 

The rules adopted by the Institute of International 
Law at Venice, 189(3, provide: 

Art. 1. There is no difference between the rules of the law of 
war as to bombardment by military forces on land and that by 
naval forces. 

The Hague Convention, with respect to the laws and 
customs of war on land, provides : 

Art. XXV. The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, hab- 
itations, or buildings which are not defended is prohibited. 

Art. XXVI. The commander of an attacking force, before com- 
mencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should 
do all he can to warn the authorities. 

Art. XXVII. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps 
should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, 
art, science, and charity, hospitals and places where the sick and 
wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time 
for military purposes. 

The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some 
particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to 
the assailants. 

The situation is, however, somewhat different in 
bombardment by land forces. It is evident, however, 
that it was not the intent that these rules of The Hague 
Convention should apply to naval warfare, as the con- 
clusions of The Hague Conference contain, in the 
seventh resolution, the following statement : "The Con- 
ference expresses the wish that the proposition of regu- 
lating the question of bombardment of ports, cities, or 
villages by a naval force should be referred for exami- 
nation to another conference." 

As Article 4 of the code now reads, it has been held 
that unfortified and. undefended towns may be bom- 
barded directly, when such direct bombardment is a 
part of a more general attempt at the destruction of 
military or naval establishments, public depots of 
munitions of war, etc. It has been held that such 
bombardment might be undertaken upon a given day 
with the expectation that at some future time the 



25 

"military or naval establishments," etc., would be 
bombarded. 

Such action would not be permissible, however, ac- 
cording to the best opinion of modern times. Bombard- 
ment can only be aimed at ' ' military or naval estab- 
lishments," etc., as named in Article 4. The "unfortified 
and undefended towns, villages, or buildings" may 
without direct intention be injured in the fire incidental 
to such bombardment. Such injury can not be called 
bombardment of the "towns, villages, or buildings." 

It should be observed that a single act of forcible 
resistance to an order of a properly authorized military 
officer may constitute defense. A town, village, or 
dwelling may thus easily pass from an undefended to a 
defended condition. 

The requisition for supplies must be reasonable and 
must be properly made. The characteristics of such 
action are indicated by the Hague Convention with 
respect to the laws and customs of war on land. 

Art. LII. Neither requisition in kind nor services can be demanded 
from communes or inhabitants, except for the necessities of the 
army of occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources 
of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the popula- 
tion in the obligation of taking part in military operations against 
their country. 

These requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the 
authority of the commander in the locality occupied. 

The contributions in kind shall, as far as possible, be paid for in 
ready money; if not, their receipt shall be acknowledged. 

To avoid possible misinterpretation, the clause should 
read: "The bombardment, by a naval force, of unforti- 
fied and undefended towns, villages, or buildings is for- 
bidden, though such towns, villages, or buildings are 
liable to the damages incidental to the destruction of 
military or naval establishments, public depots of mu- 
nitions of war, or vessels of war in port, and such towns, 
villages, or buildings are liable to bombardment when 
reasonable requisitions for provisions and supplies at the 
time essential to the naval force are withheld, in which 
case due notice of bombardment shall be given." 



26 

(b) Should the clause "The bombardment of unforti- 
fied and undefended towns and places for the nonpay- 
ment of ransom is forbidden," be stricken out? 

The clause "The bombardment of unfortified and 
undefended towns and places for the nonpayment of 
ramsom is forbidden " should be retained as a part of 
the code. The matter of such bombardment has been 
recently and quite fully » discussed before this Naval 
War College by Prof. John Bassett Moore and will 
be found in the publications of the Naval War College, 
International Law Situations with Solutions and Notes, 
1901, pages 5-37. Latest opinion and practice alike 
support the retention of this clause of Article 4. 

(c) Should a clause to the effect that "An open town 
which is defended against the entrance of troops or dis- 
embarked marines may be bombarded in order to pro- 
tect the landing of soldiers and marines if the open 
town attempts to prevent it, and as an auxiliary measure 
of war, in order to facilitate an assault made by the 
troops and the disembarked marines, if the town defends 
itself," be inserted? 

The insertion of such a provision is unnecessary, as 
"an open town" which is in the position described is no 
longer "an open town" in the sense of an undefended 
town, which is the town exempt by Article 4; therefore 
the town, by defense against the entrance of troops or 
disembarked marines, becomes liable to the military 
operations which might include bombardment if cir- 
cumstances made it necessary. 

(d) Would bombardment of an open town be justi- 
fiable in case a division of the enemy's army occupies 
the town and refuses to surrender on demand of the 

' United States naval force? 

The Institute of International Law, in its session in 
September, 189G, adopted the following regulation : 

An open town may not be exposed to bombardment by the sole 
fact: 

1. That it is the capital of a state or the seat of government (but, 
naturally, these circumstances give it no guarantee against bom- 
bardment) . 



27 

2. That it is actually occupied by troops, or that it is ordinarily 
garrisoned by troops of various arms, destined to rejoin the army 
in time of war. 

This rule, if generally accepted, would not cover the 
case under consideration, however, for the occupancy 
by the enemy's troops is not the sole fact nor even the 
important fact in this case. The important fact is that 
an armed force refuses on demand to surrender, and the 
fact that it remains in "an open town" in name, can not 
exempt the town or force from the necessary military 
measures. The town, in fact, becomes defended under 
these circumstances and is liable to treatment as such a 
town. 

(e) The harbor of an unfortified town is supposed to 
contain submarine mines making entry dangerous. 
The commanding officer of the United States naval 
forces requests assurances in regard to the condition of 
the harbor. This is refused. Is the officer justified in 
bombarding the town in order to obtain an answer or 
as a measure of war? 

The refusal to give information or assurances to the 
commanding officer leaves him no alternative other 
than to assume that the town is defended against ap- 
proach from the sea. Such being the case, he is justified 
in bombarding the town after due notice, either in 
order to obtain an answer to his reasonable request for 
information or as a measure of war. 

Article 5. 

The following rules are to be followed with regard to 
submarine telegraphic cables in time of war, irrespective 
of their ownership : 

(a) Submarine telegraphic cables between points in 
the territory of an enemy, or between the territory of 
the United States and that of an enemy, are subject to 
such treatment as the necessities of war may require. 

(6) Submarine telegraphic cables between the terri- 
tory of an enemy and neutral territory maybe inter- 
rupted within the territorial jurisdiction of the enemy. 

(c) Submarine telegraphic cables between two nent ra] 
territories shall be held inviolable and free from inter- 
ruption. 



28 

(a) Should the clause, "or at any point outside of 
neutral jurisdiction, if the necessities of war require," 
be added to (b) under Article 5? 

After consideration of recent practice and the discus- 
sions in regard to the treatment of submarine telegraphic 
cables, it would seem best to elaborate the first clause 
of Article 5. It was evidently not intended to require 
that the provisions of Article 5 should be followed inva- 
riably. Accordingly the first clause should read as 
follows : " Unless under satisfactory censorship or other- 
wise exempt, the following rules are established with 
regard to the treatment of submarine telegraphic cables 
in time of war, irrespective of their ownership." 

Clauses (a) and (c) are generally accepted as correct 
statements of the rules to be followed in case of cables 
connecting belligerent points on the one hand and neu- 
tral points on the other. 

The situation involved in clause (b), "Submarine 
telegraphic cables between the territory of an enemy 
and neutral territory may be interrupted within the 
territorial jurisdiction of the enemy," in various forms 
has been much discussed. It has been claimed that a 
submarine telegraphic cable between the terrritory of 
an enemy and neutral territory (1) should not be inter- 
rupted under any conditions, (2) could be interrupted 
only within the three-mile limit, (3) could be interrupted 
only when the belligerent landing place was under effect- 
ive blockade, and (4) could be interrupted at any point 
outside of neutral jurisdiction if military necessity 
required such interruption. Others would modify some 
of these provisions further according to ownership, loca- 
tion, etc. 

The subject of the treatment of submarine telegraphic 
cables was quite fully considered in the report of the 
Interdepartmental Committee on Cable Communica- 
tions, made to the English Parliament, March 26, 1902. 
The Institute of International Law also gave the subject 
much attention at its meeting in September, 1902. The 
English committee admits that arrangements should be 
made ' ' on the supposition that a considerable propor- 



29 

tion of cables will be cut," and that "it will be the 
interest of the belligerents to interrupt or control, by 
censorship, the telegraphic cornmunications of their 
adversaries, even to the degree of occasioning detriment 
to neutrals and of incurring liability to make compen- 
sation to them for arbitrary interference with their 
cables." (Certain phases of the subject of the treatment 
of submarine telegraphic cables in time of war were 
discussed in the International Law Situations, Naval 
War College, 1902, pp. 7-20.) 

At the session of the Institute of International Law 
in 1902 the question of the treatment of submarine tele- 
graphic cables in time of war received much attention. 
Bearing upon the case of cables connecting neutral and 
belligerent territory, Von Bar, one of the German repre- 
sentatives, advanced the following proposition: 

Comme les pays neutres ont le droit de communiquer librenient 
avec les belligerants, les seuls titres admissibles pour entraver ou 
couper cette communication libre etant le blocns effectif et l'occu- 
pation militaire, il y a lieu de tirer les conclusions suivantes: 

(a) Le cable sous-marin reliant un territoire neutre aun territoire 
appartenant a une des parties en guerre ne peut etre coupe par un 
des belligerants que dans les cas suivants: 

En pleinemer ou dans la mer territoriale de l'Etat ennemi, s'il y 
a blocus effectif et que ce blocus embrasse le rayon ou se trouw 
le cable; 

Dans le territoire ennemi meme, si l'endroit de la cote ou aboutit 
ou l'ile ou passe le cable est occupe, soit pour un temps prolon.uv. 
soit momentanement, par la partie belligerante. 

En dehors de ces cas, le cable en question est inviolable en pleine 
mer comme dans la mer territoriale de la partie ennemie. 

(6) Le droit de s'emparer et de profiter du cable en question 
n'existe que dans les cas ou il y a droit de le couper. 

(c) II n'y a pas de difference a etablir, quant au droit d'un Etat 
belligerant de couper un cable sous-marin ou del'exploiter, entre les 
cables exploites par un gouvernement neutre et les cables exploites 
par des compagnies privees concessionnaires. 

(cl) Dans les*cas precites ou existe le droit de l'Etat belligerant de 
couper un cable sous-marin ou de s'en emparer autremcnt, aucun 
dedommagement du chef de l'exercice de ce droit n'est du a la com- 
pagnie ni a l'Etat a qui appartient le cable, ni aux personnea qui 
auraient fait cabler des depeches. (Annuaire de L'lnstitnt de Dr< >ir 
International, 19, 1902, p. 12.) 



30 

Von Bar further says (p. 16) : 

II me semble pourtant, sans qu'il soit necessaire de faire usage de 
la theorie du droit d'angarie, droit douteux et souvent conteste, 
que Ton peut poser simplement comme regie generale que les Etats 
neutres, et de meme leurs sujets, ont le droit de communiquer libre- 
ment aveo l'une et l'autre des parties belligerantes et leurs terri- 
toires, et qu'on ne doit reconnaitre a cette regie que deux exceptions, 
dont l'une se fonde sur I 'occupation militaire et l'autre sur le droit 
de blocus. 

Comme la pleine mer ne peut etre occupee, il ne peut etre permis 
de couper un cable servant de communication entre un pays neutre 
et un territoire ennemi, et comme le blocus, pour donner le droit 
d'interrompre les communications des neutres avec l'ennemi, doit 
etre effect if , il n'y a pas lieu d'etendre 1' exception de maniere a 
permettre la destruction d'un cable en pleine mer a la seule condi- 
tion que cela se fasse a une distance du territoire ennemi ou un 
blocus peut etre exerce, mais n'est pas pratique reellement. 

La question speciale la plus delicate est peut-etre celle de savoir 
si TEtat belligerant a le droit de couper des cables reliant un terri- 
toire neutre a un territoire ennemi dans les eaux territoriales de 
l'ennemi. II semble juste de faire dependre la solution de la possi- 
bilite d'une occupation reelle. Dans les eaux territoriales, soumises 
completement a la souverainete de l'Etat et, de ce chef, pouvant 
etre occupees reellement, ce droit existe. Mais il n'existe pas quant 
a la mer territoriale dans le sens des resolutions de Tlnstitut de 1894 
(Annuaire, 13, p. 329) (" Kiistenmeer "), cette partie de la mer 
n'etant pas completement soumise a la souverainete exclusive de 
l'Etat riverain, et servant, au contraire, au commerce general et 
libre du monde entier. 

Renault, one of the French members, disagreed with 
Yon Bar, saying, that while agreeing with (&), (c), (f?), 
above, he did not agree with (a). 

Dans le cas d'un cable sous-marin reliant un territoire neutre au 
territoire de l'un des belligerants, j'admets pour l'autre belligerant 
le droit de couper le cable, soit sur le territoire ou dans les eaux 
territoriales de son adversaire, soit meme en pleine mer. 

Je ne distingue pas suivant qu'il y a ou non blocus. (Annuaire 
1902, p. 18.) 

Other propositions were advanced. Professor Hol- 
land, of Oxford, offered the following (p. 301) : 

1. Le cable telegraphique sous-marin, unissant deux territoires 
neutres, est inviolable. (Institut de Droit international, 1879.) 

2. Le cable reliant les territoires de deux belligerants ou deux 
parties du territoire d'un des belligerants peut etre coupe partout, 
excepte dans les eaux territoriales neutres. 



31 

3. Le cable reliant un territoire neutre a un territoire appartenant 
a un des belligerants ne peut etre coupe que dans les eaux terri- 
toriales de ce belligerant. 

4. En ce qui concerne 1' application des regies precedentes, il n'y 
a de difference a etablir, ni entre les cables d'Etat et les cables 
appartenant a des individus, ni entre les cables de propriete ennemie 
et ceux qui sont de propriete neutre. 

5. Quand la coupure d'un cable est permise selon les regies piv<V- 
dentes, aucune indemnity n'est due aux proprietaires ennemis du 
cable pour cet acte, accompli comme operation de guerre. (Les 
prescriptions de l'article 53 de la Convention de La Haye ne sont 
pas applicables a ce cas.) 

6. Au contraire, le belligerant qui a coupe un cable de propriete 
neutre (soit d'Etat, soit d'individus), dans l'exercice d'un droit 
analogue au jus angariae [ou de visite en haute mer (1)], est tenu 
des frais de reparation. II n'est pas tenu d'indemniser les proprie- 
taires pour la perte de leurs benefices. (Annuaire 1902, p. 301.) 

Professor Perels, of Berlin, offered the following 
(p. 302) : 

1 . Le cable telegraphique sous-niarin reliant des territoires neutres 
est inviolable. 

2. La liberte d'action des belligerants n'est pas restreinte, si le 
cable relie leurs territoires respectifs ou deux points du territoire 
d'un seul des belligerants. 

3. Pour le cas ou le cable relierait le territoire d'un belligerant et 
le territoire d'un neutre, une reglementation generale n'est pas 
possible actuellement. Les mesures a prendre dependront, selon 
les circonstances, des operations rnilitaires; elles ne dependent nulle- 
ment du droit de propriete des cables. 

Dans l'interet du commerce international, il estcependant desira- 
ble de ne detruire ou interrompre la communication telegraphique 
que si la necessity militaire l'exige. 

Rolin, editor of the Revue de droit international et de 
legislation comparee made the following proposition 
(p. 317): 

Le cable sous-marin reliant un territoire neutre a un territoire 
appartenant a une des parties en guerre ne pourra en aucun cas 
etre coupe par un des belligerants dans les eaux territorial is on 
neutralisees dependant d'un territoire neutre. 

H pourra etre coupe, selon les necessites des operations militaitf 
sur le territoire et dans les eaux territoriales de l'ennenii. 

H pourra egalement etre coupe en pleine mer, si apres avoir 
notifie a l'Etat neutre l'interdiction de transmettre des depeches, 
etc. * * * 

Upon a vote of the Institute of International Law in 
1902, as to whether it should be absolutely forbidden to 



32 

interrupt in the high sea a cable uniting a belligerent 
and a neutral, 14 favored absolute prohibition of inter- 
ruption of such cable in the high sea, 17 opposed such 
prohibition, and 1 did not vote. A subsequent vote 
showed that although the institute was not in favor of 
absolute prohibition of interruption of cables in the 
high sea, it was not, therefore, of the opinion that the 
right to interrupt was unlimited. 

Finally the institute, 19 voting in the affirmative, 
6 in the negative, and 4 not voting, adopted the follow- 
ing (p. 331) : 

REGLES CONCERN ANT LES CABLES SOUS-MARINS EN TEMPS DE GUERRE. 

I. Le cable sous-marin reliant deux territoires neutres est in- 
violable. 

II. Le cable reliant les territoires de denx belligerants ou deux 
parties du territoire d'un des belligerants peut etre coupe partout, 
excepte dans la mer territoriale et dans les eaux neutralisees 
dependant d'un territoire neutre ("neutralisees " par traite ou par 
declaration conformement a 1' article 4 des resolutions de Paris de 
1894). 

III. Le cable reliant un territoire neutre au territoire d'un des 
belligerants ne peut en aucun cas etre coupe dans la mer territoriale 
ou dans les. eaux neutralisees dependant d'un territoire neutre. 

En haute mer, ce cable ne peut etre coupe que s'il y a blocus 
effectif et dans les limites de la ligne du blocus, sauf retablissenient 
du cable dans le plus bref delai possible. Ce cable peut tou jours 
etre coupe sur le territoire et dans la mer territoriale dependant 
d'un territoire ennemi jusqu'a une distance de trois milles marins 
de la laisse de basse-maree. 

IV. II est entendu que la liberte de l'Etat neutre de transmettre 
des depeches n'implique pas la faculte d'en user ou d'en permettre 
l'usage manifestement pour preter assistance a l'un des belligerants. 

V. En ce qui concerne l'application des regies precedentes, il n'y 
a de difference a etablir ni entre les cables d'Etat et les cables appar- 
tenant a des particuliers, ni entre les cables de propriete ennemie et 
ceux qui sont de propriete neutre. 

The above rules are in some respects more exact than 
those of the Naval War Code, though, as the discus- 
sions show, not wholly satisfactory to members of the 
Institute. 

The first rule is essentially the same as that of the 
Naval War Code. 

The second rule contains a provision protecting a 
cable which connects belligerent in so far as it is 



33 

actually within neutral jurisdiction. This is covered 
by Article 2 of the Naval War Code, however. 

The third rule is more detailed and specific than the 
provisions of the Naval War Code, which is that "Sub- 
marine telegraphic cables between the territory of an 
enemy and neutral territory may be interrupted within 
the territorial jurisdiction of the enemy." The rules 
of the institute cover this point in the last clause of this 
third rule. In regard to this provision of the Naval 
War Code, the statement is that such cables may be cut 
within enemy jurisdiction, and not that they are not 
to be cut elsewhere. It is certain that such a cable 
should not be interrupted by any act which itself shall 
take place within neutral jurisdiction. It would not, 
of course, be allowable for any belligerent to cut any 
cable within the three-mile limit of a neutral state. 
There is then left entirely undetermined the status of 
cables between an enemy and a neutral so far as they 
lie in the high seas. 

If cables between neutrals and belligerents can be cut 
only within the jurisdiction of the belligerent, it would 
be good policy for a belligerent to see that, so far as 
possible, immediately on the outbreak of hostilities a 
neutral landing place be interposed between the termini 
of all his cables or to make provision for neutral landing 
places in their original construction, thus leaving only 
the guardianship of the cable line within the three-mile 
limit for the belligerent's cruisers. This would probably 
not be maintained seriously in a case necessitating the 
cutting of a cable, even beyond the three-mile limit, or, 
as was maintained in the Spanish-American war, "the 
limit of the range of the enemy's gun." (Wilson, Sub- 
marine Telegraphic Cables in their International Rela- 
tions. Lectures, Naval War College, Newport, L901, 
p. 32.) 

Further, it may be said: "This code does not, however, 
cover the debatable points in regard to cables which arc 
beyond the three-mile limit or other limits of jurisdictioD 
of a belligerent and the same limits of a neutral stair. 
The status of such cables must be determined, \'<>v the 

20681 3 



34 

present, by reference to general principles and the 
tendency is to so determine their status. This is neces- 
sary because great injury might be done to one or both 
of the belligerents if the laws of different states might 
say what was proper service in the time of war, as was 
formerly thought to be possible unless a convention was 
adopted among the leading states. If the material of 
which the cable is to be made is liable to seizure and 
confiscation on the high sea in the time of war, then it 
is not too much to claim that the cable itself, when in 
full operation, is liable to the consequences of war under 
like circumstances." (Ibid, p. 37.) 

The rule of the Institute tries to cover the treatment 
of cables beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the bel- 
ligerent by specifying that only within the limits of 
effective blockade is cutting allowable. The fourth rule 
introduces an idea, which, if carried out, would make all 
cutting unnecessary, for it is only to prevent the trans- 
mission of hostile messages that cutting is necessary 
within the territorial jurisdiction of the enemy, within 
blockade lines, or at any other point. The destruction 
of a harmless cable would be prohibited as wanton 
devastation. It will be evident that if the fourth rule 
can be enforced the third will be unnecessary, because 
a cable of this class would not be used for hostile pur- 
poses. If the fourth rule is not enforced, the limitation 
of cutting to the places specified in the third rule 
becomes arbitrary. 

The fourth of these rules in regard to cables adopted 
by the Institute states that "It is intended that the 
liberty of the neutral state to transmit dispatches shall 
not involve the right to use or to permit their use, mani- 
festly for lending aid to one of the belligerents." This 
rule does not, however, provide any means for the pre- 
vention of the use which is forbidden. 

If a submarine cable connecting one belligerent and a 
neutral state is used to aid that belligerent, the other 
belligerent doubtless has a right to prevent such use in 
any reasonable manner provided he does not thereby 
violate neutral territory or neutral rights. This fourth 



35 

rule provides that the neutral has no right to permit the 
cable to be used manifestly to aid one of the belligerents. 
If the neutral does not prevent such use, then the other 
belligerent impliedly must take action. The action 
most feasible and certain is often the cutting of the 
cable outside of neutral jurisdiction. Therefore, if mil- 
itary necessity justifies such action, it may be taken. 
The officer responsible for the interruption must realize 
that he assumes the responsibility and that this respon- 
sibility should be assumed only when based on military 
necessity. As M. Renault well said in the discussion, 
"II faut qu'a des moyens d'attaque nouveaux correspon- 
dent des moyens de defense nouveaux: le moyen d'at- 
taque etant devenu plus rapide et plus dangereux, le 
moyen de defense peut devenir plus dur, puisque autre- 
ment il n'y aurait plus aucun moyen de defense du tout.' , 
(Annuaire, 1902, p. 314.) 

Pending an international agreement, the following- 
wording would meet the requirements of the United 
States Navy, while giving reasonable guarantee as to 
the observance of neutral rights : 

Art. 5. Unless under satisfactory censorship or otherwise exempt, 
the following rules are established with regard to the treatment of 
submarine telegraphic cables in time of war, irrespective of their 
ownership: 

(a) Submarine telegraphic cables between points in the territory 
of an enemy, or between the territory of the United States and 
that of an enemy, are subject to such treatment as the necessities of 
war may require. 

(b) Submarine telegraphic cables between the territory of an 
enemy and neutral territory may be interrupted within the territo- 
rial jurisdiction of the enemy or at any point outside of neutral 
jurisdiction, if the necessities of war require. 

(c) Submarine telegraphic cables between two neutral territories 
shall be held inviolable and free from interruption. 

There is no doubt, however, that this whole mailer of 
the treatment of submarine telegraphic cables in time 
of war should be referred to an international convention 
for adjustment. So far as the present conditions are 
concerned the rules as above stated accord with practice, 
and while opinion is divided, some of the besl authori- 
ties agree with the above rules and particularly with the 



36 

provision that military necessity may compel interrup- 
tion ontside of neutral jurisdiction. [Perels, Das inter- 
national offentliche Seerecht der Gegenwart, Berlin, 
1903 ; p. 186.] The rules should, from the above and from 
other reasons, read as stated until some international 
agreement is devised. 

(b) Should a provision in regard to wireless telegraphy 
be inserted in the code ? 

At the present time, the future of wireless telegraphy 
is uncertain and the possibility of interruption not fully 
determined. There is no reason for binding the officers 
by any regulations in advance of more accurate knowl- 
edge of the subject itself and of its possibilities. There- 
fore the proposition to insert a provision in regard to 
wireless telegraphy should not be entertained unless by 
international agreement. 

Article 6. 

If military necessity should require it, neutral vessels 
found within the limits of belligerent authority may be 
seized and destroyed or otherwise utilized for military 
purposes, but in such cases the owners of neutral ves- 
sels must be fully recompensed. The amount of the 
indemnity should, if practicable, be agreed on in advance 
with the owner or master of the vessel. Due regard 
must be had to treaty stipulations upon these matters. 

Could a fast pleasure yacht be seized and used for a 
dispatch boat under the provisions of Article 6 ? 

" Military necessity, as understood by modern civil- 
ized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures 
which are indispensable for securing the ends of war 
and which are lawful according to the modern law and 
usages of war." (Instructions for the Government of 
Armies of the United States, Article 14; Naval War 
Code, Article 3.) 

If military necessity exists, the fast pleasure yacht 
could be seized and used for a dispatch boat without 
question. A fast pleasure yacht is properly included 
under the clause "neutral vessels." 



37 

Article 7. 

The use of false colors in war is forbidden, and when 
summoning a vessel to lie to, or before firing a gun in 
action, the national colors should be displayed by ves- 
sels of the United States. 

(a) Does "war," as used in Article 7, mean the period 
of actual engagement in hostile action or the period from 
the declaration to the termination of the war in the gen- 
eral sense ? 

As war throughout the code is used to indicate the 
period during which the peaceful relations between 
states are severed, there is no reason for giving to the word 
a different interpretation at this point. Therefore, the 
word does not refer to the engagement, but to the period 
of hostile relationship between the states, regardless of 
the issue or failure to issue a declaration. 

" No one can claim, as a right, that a public declara- 
tion of war shall be promulgated, unless it be the nation 
by whose government it is made, and then it serves only 
as a notice to their own citizens and subjects." (Blatch- 
ford, Prize Cases; Betts, J., in "Hiawatha," 1.) 

"The question of the point of time at which a stale 
of peace gives way to a condition of war is a question 
of fact. War begins with the first act of open hostili! y." 
(Walker, "Science of International Law," p. 243.) 
Risley, in "The Law of War," page 82, summarizes the 
present position : 

The following conclusions seem to be warranted: 
1. War, as affecting belligerents inter se, commences from the 
date of an absolute declaration if its issue precede any act of hos- 
tility. In all other cases the war dates from the commencement of 
hostilities. Thus if a conditional declaration, such as an ultimatum 
addressed to an offending state, is followed by war, the war will 
date from the commencement of hostilities and not from the condi- 
tional declaration. 

.2. War, as affecting any neutral power, commences from the date 
at which the neutral power has, or may reasonably be supposed to 
have, knowledge of its existence. If a declaration or manifesto is 
issued, the neutral's knowledge of course dates from the official 
announcement ; in all other cases the conduct of neutrals is entitled 
to the most favorable construction, and hostilities must have become 
so open and notorious that ignorance of them on the part of the 



38 ' 

neutral is impossible before the liabilities attaching to their neutral 
character will be enforced by the belligerents. 

In modern times, however, questions as to the commencement of 
war are not likely to arise, because the rapidity of communication, 
the activity of the press, and the publicity accorded to all matters of 
domestic and international policy combine to make the outbreak 
of a war immediately known all over the world. Every state is in 
fact cognizant of the precise date of its commencement, whether it 
be the date of an official notification or the date of the commence- 
ment of actual hostilities. 

(b) Should the entire article be stricken out ? 

Admitting that ' ' war " applies to the entire period of 
hostile relationships, and no other interpretation can be 
given, what does the Article 7 mean ? 

1. The use of a false flag is forbidden during the 
period of war. 

2. Before or when firing a gun or engaging in action, 
the flag of the United States should be displayed. 

3. There is no obligation to display the flag of the 
United States till the time of summoning a vessel to 
lie to or till the time of action. The absence of any 
flag, or the presence of a flag which is not false, is not 
mentioned. 

Upon 2 and 3 all authorities who refer to the subject 
are agreed, i. e., that before firing a gun the true flag 
must be displayed and that till such time no flag need 
be raised. 

There remains the question whether what many regard 
as a form of perfidy is allowable up to the time of firing 
a gun and is not allowable at the actual discharge of 
the gun, when it would be of little or no service other 
than to establish to a certainty the probable enemy 
character of the vessel firing the gun. It would not be 
presumed that a neutral would fire upon a belligerent 
or one vessel of a belligerent upon another vessel of the 
same belligerent, consequently it is held that the false 
flag would be pulled down and the true flag would be 
displayed at the time when the false flag would be of no 
further use. 

In summoning a neutral vessel to lie to the use of 
true colors is necessary, however, as it establishes the 



39 

identity of the vessel and gives evidence of its right in 
time of war to interfere with neutral commerce. 

The nse of false colors in land warfare has been abso- 
lutely prohibited, as shown in the following. 

Instructions United States Army, 18G3, Article 65 : 

The use of the enemy's national standard, flag, or other emblem of 
nationality, for the purpose of deceiving the enemy in battle, is an 
act of perfidy by which they lose all claim to the protection of the 
laws of war. 

Brussels Rules, 1874, Articles 12, 13: 

Art. 12. The laws of war do not allow to belligerents an unlimited 
power as to the choice of means of injuring the enemy. 
Art. 13. According to this principle are strictly forbidden: 
(/) Abuse of the flag of truce, the national flag, or the military 
insignia or uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges 
of the Geneva Convention. 

Oxford Manual, 1880, section 8 : 

It is forbidden: 

(d) To make improper use of the national flag, of signs of military 
ranks, or of the uniform of the enemy, of a flag of truce, or of the 
protective marks prescribed by the Convention of Geneva. 

Hague Convention, Laws and Customs of War on 
Land, Article XXIII : 

Besides the prohibitions provided by special conventions, it is 
especially prohibited: 

(/) To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or 
military ensigns and the enemy's uniform, as well as the distinctive 
badges of the Geneva Convention. 

It has come to be the generally accepted opinion that 
"deceit involving perfidy should be forbidden." 

The flag is the emblem held most esteemed and sacred 
among states. It is the usual method of showing alle- 
giance and is to be raised only on sufficient authority. 

The use of false colors on land or similar perfidy de- 
prives the users of the ' ' claim to protection of the laws 
of war." 

It is evident that the use of false colors in warfare on 
the sea may bring about results very different from t hose 
which would follow warfare in which false colors were 
prohibited. Pillet has proposed the establishment of a 



40 

zone into which no vessel may come without establish- 
ing its identity. He says : 

Les transformations de rarmement maritime ont rendu cette regie 
traditionnelle tout a fait insuffisante au point de vue de la securite 
des belligerants. II est possible, en effet, qu'un navire de guerre 
ennemi ne hisse son veritable pavilion qu'au moment precis ou il 
lache la bordee qui mettra son adversaire hors de combat; il est pos- 
sible surtout, qu'un torpilleur s'approche a bonne portee, puis arbore 
ses couleurs et immediatement lance une torpille contre laquelle le 
navire vise ne pourra pas tou jours se proteger. La tolerance admise 
quant au pavilion peut ainsi avoir pour consequence des surprises 
fatales, surprises que cette seule tolerance permet de pratiquer. Ce 
n'est evidemment pas pour obtenir de tels resultats que la liberte 
ancienne a ete admise, et on ne prevoyait pas, au moment ou cette 
coutume s'est formee, que la rapidite de certains navires et la puis- 
sance de leurs engins de destruction permettraient ainsi de miner 
un vaisseau de guerre avant meme qu'il put savoir qu'il etait en 
presence d'un ennemi. Pour remedier a cet inconvenient qui est 
grave il conviendrait de s'attacher a une idee emise autrefois par 
quelques auteurs (De Cussy, Causes celebres du droit des gens, 1 liv., 
Ill, sec. 60; Hautefeuille, Histoire des origines, p. 23; Bluntschli, 
Volkerrecht, sec. 318; Phillimore, Commentaries upon international 
law, t. 1, sec. 203) et de conferer aux navires de guerre des bellig- 
erants le droit de juridiction sur une certaine zone (de trois milles 
de rayon par exemple) dont chaque navire serait le centre, et dans 
laquelle aucun vaisseau de guerre ne pourrait entrer sans se faire 
reconnaitre, a peine d'etre traite comme ennemi. II est a souhaiter 
que les Puissances maritimes s'occupent de cette difficulte, et qi 'une 
convention internationale soit signee qui consacre la solution que 
nous proposons. (Les Lois Actuelles de la Guerre, 2d ed., p. 144.) 

Hall makes the following statement of snch rules as 

allow false colors : 

A curious arbitrary rule affects one class of strategems by forbid- 
ding certain permitted means of deception from the moment at 
which they cease to deceive. It is perfectly legitimate to use the 
distinctive emblems of an enemy in order to escape from him or to 
draw his forces into action; but it is held that soldiers clothed in the 
uniforms of their enemy must put on a conspicuous mark by which 
they can be recognized before attacking, and that a vessel using the 
enemy's flag must hoist its own flag before firing with shot or shell. 
The rule, disobedience to which is considered to entail grave dis- 
honor, has been based on the statement that "in actual battle, 
enemies are bound to combat loyally and are not free to insure vic- 
tory by putting on a mask of friendship.'' In war upon land victory 
might be so insured, and the rule is consequently sensible; but at 
sea, and the prohibition is spoken of generally with reference to 
maritime war, the mask of friendship no longer misleads when 



41 

once fighting begins, and it is not easy to see why it is more dis- 
loyal to wear a disguise when it is obviously useless, than when it 
serves its purpose. (Hall, International Law, 4th ed., p. 558.) 

The use of " false colors " is evidently subject to much 
difference of opinion. (See Perels, Seerecht ger Gegen- 
wart, p. 182.) JSTo scheme of such use has been pro- 
posed which seems satisfactory, and it is difficult to see 
how honorable warfare can be conducted upon such a 
basis as is implied in the use of false colors. Undoubt- 
edly, the rule prohibiting the use of false colors in war 
should be made with definite provisions in regard to 
legitimate ruses in maritime warfare. 

It is, however, the opinion of the officers in conference 
upon this subject that the United States, without a simi- 
lar provision against the use of false colors by other 
States, would be put at great disadvantage in time of 
war through the existence of this prohibition in the 
United States Naval War Code. The officers were then - 
fore almost unanimously (one dissenting) of the opinion 
that this rule should be stricken from the code pending 
some international agreement upon the use of "false 
colors." 

(c) Should all of the article following the word ' ' for- 
bidden " be stricken out ? 

If the article is retained, the words following ' ' for- 
bidden " in Article 7 are necessary as specifying at what 
time the national colors should be displayed, while dur- 
ing the period preceding there is no prohibition of the 
use of emblems that are not in the category of false 
colors, nor objection to sailing without a flag. 

(d) Could a torpedo boat approach near an enemy 
ship under false colors and then raising true colors 
launch a torpedo against its opponent ? 

Under the present rules there would be no difference 
in the application of the rule to a torpedo or other 
vessel. 

(e) One author says, "A ship may by employing false 
colors attempt to escape pursuit on the part of the 
enemy or perhaps even force a blockade; but it is abso- 
lutely forbidden by the regulations as well as by the 
usages of war to engage in hostilities under a false flag ; 



42 

violation of this rule would be inexcusable even in the 
case of the most pressing necessity." How far is this 
position correct and in what respects is it incorrect? 

This situation falls into three divisions, (1) the use of 
false colors to escape pursuit, (2) to force a blockade, 
and (3) to engage in hostilities. 

(1) The use of false colors to evade pursuit has gen- 
erally been held as allowable. It must be remembered, 
however, that this escape of an enemy vessel under 
false colors may add just so much to the fighting force 
of the enemy by so much delaying the realization of the 
end of war, viz, "the complete submission of the enemy 
at the earliest possible moment." 

(2) The forcing of a blockade under false colors is 
generally regarded as an act of war and therefore for- 
bidden. This seems to be the more reasonable opinion 
and the opinion which the fact sustains. The passing 
of a blockade by a public ship of a neutral is a courtesy 
allowed on the part of the blockading fleet. A neutral 
should not be put under suspicion because it is allowable 
for an enemy to use his flag. The consequences of this 
form of deceit so directly affect the neutral that such 
use of the flag should be forbidden. 

(3) The remaining portion of the quotation is in 
accord with the best opinion and would be universally 
upheld. 

It is the final opinion that Article 7 should be made 
the subject of international agreement or else should be 

repealed. 

Article 8. 

In the event of an enemy failing to observe the laws 
and usages of war, if the offender is beyond reach, resort 
may be had to reprisals, if such action should be con- 
sidered a necessity ; but due regard must always be had 
to the duties of humanity. Reprisals should not exceed 
in severity the offense committed, and must not be re- 
sorted to when the injury complained of has been 
repaired. 

If the offender is within the power of the United 
States he can be punished, after due trial, by a properly 
constituted military or naval tribunal. Such offenders 
are liable to the punishments specified by the criminal 
law. 



43 

(a) In fourth line of Article 8, should the word "mili- 
tary " be inserted before the word "necessity?" 

No, because in general cases where reprisals would be 
resorted to, such actions would not be because of mili- 
tary necessity, but rather for disciplinary purposes in 
order that the laws and usages of war might subse- 
quently be observed, e. g., when uncivilized peoples do 
not observe these rules. 

Action in the nature of reprisal against civilized 
enemies should be sanctioned by the general government 
and not undertaken by a subordinate officer unless a 
military necessity requires, as there are other means for 
the treatment of civilized enemies. 

(b) A prominent authority says, ' ' Reprisal is an act 
of vengeance pure and simple and should be wholly 
proscribed or at least reserved for wars undertaken 
against the uncivilized who have no notion of the law 
of nations and are accessible only to the feeling of 
fear." Is this a proper statement of the fact and should 
the whole of Article 8 be stricken out? 

This is not a correct statement of fact as reprisals are 
now viewed, though reprisals may sometimes be acts of 
vengeance. This is the general continental point of 
view, however. The English and American point of view 
is that reprisals are undertaken to secure redress for in- 
juries and usually are aimed against property or inter- 
course, rarely against persons. 

Article 8 is however greatly restricted as Been in its 
provisions for reprisals : 

1. For violation of "laws and usages of war," one 
specific cause. 

2. By an "offender beyond reach." 

3. In case of "necessity" only. 

4. Within duties of "humanity." 

5. Proportioned to offense. 

6. Only in case of "injury not repaired." 

7. Outside power of the United States. 

Upon this debatable question of reprisals, an almost 
wholly obsolete form of action, probably it would have 
been better to refrain from utterance, but in view of the 
fact that the article has been issued, it may be well to 
leave it unchanged. 



44: 

Section II. — Belligerents. 

Article 9. 

In addition to the armed forces duly constituted for 
land warfare, the following are recognized as armed 
forces of the State : 

(1) The officers and men of the Navy, Naval Reserve, 
Naval Militia, and their auxiliaries. 

(2) The officers and men of all other armed vessels 
cruising under lawful authority. 

In Article 9 in which the armed forces of a state are 
enumerated, should other classes of persons be named ; 
if so, what classes and why? 

It has been proposed to so amend Article 9 that it shall 
read "In addition to the armed forces duly constituted 
for land and naval warfare, the following are recognized 
as armed forces of the state, " and then to omit the word 
"Navy" from the following clause. 

If this is done, it makes the words "land" and "naval" 
coordinate and respectively coinclusive and coexclusive. 
This evidently is not the intention of the article at this 
point, but rather it is the intention to make an enum- 
eration of the forces for naval warfare while mentioning 
only in general terms the land forces with the statement 
that they together "are recognized as armed forces of 
the state." 

In other words should the word "Navy" be omitted 
in clause (1) and the word "naval" be inserted in the 
introductory sentence, the word ' ' naval " as then used 
would apply to the regular Navy in the technical sense 
only and all other branches would be mentioned under 
(1) and (2). Consequently, the coordinate word "land" 
would cover the Regular Army, so called, only. This 
would not be a desirable limitation as it would make 
necessary an enlargement of the Article 9 so as to enum- 
erate the armed land forces not in the category of the 
Regular Army, which is not necessary and is even 
undesirable in the code. 

The words "In addition to" in the first line of Article 
9 may, however, be unfortunate as implying some dis- 
parity in the two branches of the armed service. Should 



45 

the word "with" be substituted for the words "In ad- 
dition to," this possible objection is removed. This in- 
troduces the idea of parity and coordination of the two 
branches. 

It was held by the officers of the Conference that Arti- 
cle 9 is not essential to the code and could be left out 
altogether without injury to the code. 

Article 10. 

In case of capture, the personnel of the armed forces 
or armed vessels of the enemy, whether combatants or 
noncombatants, are entitled to receive the humane treat- 
ment due to prisoners of war. 

The personnel of all public unarmed vessels of the 
enemy, either owned or in his service as auxiliaries, are 
liable, upon capture, to detention as prisoners of war. 

The personnel of merchant vessels of an enemy who, 
in self-defense and in protection of the vessel placed in 
their charge, resist an attack, are entitled, if captured, 
to the status of prisoners of war. 

(a) Should not Article 10 read : " In case of capture, the 
personnel of armed vessels of the enemy, whether com- 
batants or noncombatants, become prisoners of war and 
are entitled to receive the humane treatment due to 
such prisoners ? " 

The question has been raised in regard to this article 
as to whether the "personnel" mentioned in the three 
clauses are upon different relationships in view of the 
different wording of closing clauses of each sentence. 

One group is "entitled to receive," etc., one group is 
"liable to detention," etc., one group is "entitled to the 
status," etc. There would probably be no question that 
members of the second group would not merely be liable 
to be detained as prisoners of war, but would be liable 
to any other treatment allowable for prisoners of war. 

Therefore the wording should be so changed as to 
make all the clauses correspond, as when captured, those 
of each class become prisoners of war, and are entitled t < i 
the treatment due such prisoners. This treatmenl is 
very definitely outlined in The Hague Convention and is 
well understood. 



40 

In the first line of Article 10 the words "the personnel 
of the armed forces " occur. This clause should also be 
changed or omitted, as "the personnel" by Article 9 
constitutes the "armed forces" and it is not clear what 
is meant when the term is used here ; indeed it can not 
add anything when taken in connection with Article 9. 

In view of these points raised on Article 10, the word- 
ing would be more clearly and properly made as follows : 

' ' In case of capture the following become prisoners of 
war and are entitled to the humane treatment due to 
such prisoners : 

"(1) The armed forces duly constituted for land war- 
fare. 

" (2) The personnel of duly authorized armed vessels of 
the enemy whether combatants or noncombatants. 

"(3) The personnel of all public or private unarmed 
vessels engaged in the service of the enemy. 

"(4) The personnel of private vessels of an enemy 
who, for defense or in protection of a vessel placed in 
their charge, resist attack." 

(b) What should be the treatment of newspaper cor- 
respondents found on board a captured enemy vessel? 
Would a foreign naval attache be entitled to special 
consideration, and how should he be treated if similarly 
found ? 

(1) Newspaper correspondents found on board a cap- 
tured enemy vessel are (a) there at their own risk, (6) 
supposed to refrain from participation in the war, (c) 
liable to be treated as the exigencies of war require, 
(d) liable to be detained or sent away from the scene of 
action, or (e) liable to be treated as prisoners of war. ' ' In- 
dividuals who follow an army without directly belonging 
to it, such as newspaper correspondents and reporters, 
sutlers, contractors, who fall into the enemy's hands, 
and whom the latter think fit to detain, have a right to 
be treated as prisoners of war, provided they can pro- 
duce a certificate from the military authorities of the 
army they were accompanying." (Hague Convention, 
Laws and Customs of War on Land, Article 13.) 

(2) A foreign naval attache' is entitled even in time of 
war to special consideration. He can not demand treat- 
ment which would interfere with the course of the war. 



47 

He should be treated with the fullest courtesy as a repre- 
sentative of a friendly power, by chance within the 
jurisdiction of the United States. He would not become 
a prisoner of war unless he participated in hostilities. 
He may, however, be denied the privilege of sojourn 
within the military lines, or be detained, if military 
necessity requires. He should be given the widest 
liberty consistent with military necessity. Pillet gives 
quite fully the status of a military attache as follows : 

On voit aussi assez frequemment des officiers au service d'une 
puissance neutre se faire autoriser a suivre les vicissitudes d'une 
campagne dans l'armee de l'un des belligerants. II arrive meme 
que des officiers ayant un caractere diplomatique, des attaches mili- 
taires, occupent ce poste d'observation. Comme officiers, la situa- 
tion de ces spectateurs de la guerre n'est pas differente de celle des 
correspondants de journaux. lis sont sounds aux memes obliga- 
tions, lis doivent de plus s'abstenir avec soin de toute participation 
aux hostilites, car elle aurait pour consequence de leur faire perdre 
le benefice de leur qualite d'etrangers neutres. 

S'ils ont en outre la qualite d'attaches militaires, le regime de 
droit commun ne pourra plus etre le leur. Leur caractere diplo- 
matique leur assure une entiere independance, ils ne peuvent done 
pas etre retenus comme prisonniers, meme pour un temps fort court. 
Leur correspondance ne saurait non plus etre soumise a aucun con- 
trole. 

Le general ennemi entre les mains duquel ils sont tombes ne pos- 
sede a leur egard qu'un seul droit, celui de leur interdire tout 
sejours dans les lignes de son armee. Encore ne doit-il pas, dans 
l'exercice de ce droit, se departir de la courtoisie toujours en usage 
a l'egard des personnes investies d'un caractere diplomatique. 
(Pillet, Les Lois Actuelles de la Guerre, 2d ed. , p. 196, sec. 133.) 

(c) Should the last sentence in Article 10 read "The 
personnel of private vessels of an enemy who for defense 
or in protection of a vessel placed in their charge, reeisl 
an attack, are entitled, if captured, to the status of 
prisoners of Avar?" 

This question raised above implies that this article 
should be modified to include those who, for example, 
take up arms for the defense of a town or port from 
attack by launching boats and engaging in its defense. 
This brings such defenders into a class parallel to the 
levies en masse in land warfare. They should there- 
fore be treated as lawful belligerents if they respect the 
customs and laws of war. 






48 

The word ' ' merchant " should be changed to ' ' private, " 
in order that snch status may not be limited to a single 
class of "private" vessels, but may extend to all. 

The last sentence in Article 10 should therefore read: 
" The personnel of private vessels of an enemy who, for 
defense or in protection of a vessel placed in their 
charge, resist an attack, are entitled, if captured, to the 
status of prisoners of war. " 

Article 11. 

The personnel of a merchant vessel of an enemy cap- 
tured as a prize can be held, at the discretion of the 
captor, as witnesses, or as prisoners of war when by 
training or enrollment they are immediately available 
for the naval service of the enemy, or they may be 
released from detention or confinement. They are enti- 
tled to their personal effects and to such individual 
property, not contraband of war, as is not held as part 
of the vessel, its equipment, or as money, plate, or cargo 
contained therein. 

All passengers not in the service of the enemy, and 
all women and children on board such vessels should 
be released and landed at a convenient port, at the first 
opportunity. 

Any person in the naval service of the United States 
who pillages or maltreats, in any manner, any person 
found on board a merchant vessel captured as a prize, 
shall be severely punished. 

(a) One authority says of Article 11 : "I have always 
objected to the idea that noncombatants at sea can be 
held as prisoners on the far-fetched theory that, being 
able seamen, if released they might be enlisted, trained, 
armed, and so become combatants. The fact remains 
that they have not been enlisted, that they are noncom- 
batants, that therefore they should not be held as pris- 
oners." Should the words, "or as prisoners," etc., to 
the end of the sentence be stricken out? 

The question is whether in the first sentence of Ar- 
ticle 11 the words following "as witnesses" shall be 
omitted. The general rule in regard to capture is that 
any person whom a belligerent may kill as an enemy 
becomes on surrender or capture a prisoner of war. 
This' rule is modified by the further qualification that 



49 

certain persons who, by special characteristics, are of 
unusual importance or usefulness to the enemy, while 
not combatants in the technical sense are, nevertheless, 
liable to capture and detention as prisoners of war. 
Such persons are certain officials of the enemy state, 
certain persons rendering services not directly hostile, 
but yet of marked service to the enemy as, e. g., con- 
tractors, machinists, etc. Also persons who by special 
training may easily become dangerous enemies. Under 
this class may come the personnel of private vessels. 
The rule generally accepted is that sailors on all mer- 
chantmen are liable to be treated as prisoners of war. 

Article 11 qualifies this general permission by allow- 
ing detention as prisoners of war "when by training or 
enrollment they are immediately available for the naval 
service of the enemy." 

Authorities are very generally agreed upon this point. 
(Perels, Seerecht der Gegenwart, p. 190 f. ; Pillet, Les 
Lois Actuelles de la Guerre, p. 152; Hall, International 
Law, p. 421 ; Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens II, p. 
346.) Hall briefly states his conclusion: "Finally, 
sailors omboard enemy's trading vessels become prison- 
ers because of their fitness for immediate use on ships 
of war." The Naval War College Manual of Interna- 
tional Law states: "Officers and seamen of merchant 
vessels of the enemy may, according to usage, be de- 
tained as prisoners of war upon the ground that they 
can be immediately employed on ships of war." (p. 86, 
2d ed.) 

The first clause of Article 11 should stand as printed 
in the code, except as noted in (/>) below. 

(b) Should the word "private "be substituted for the 
word "merchant" in the first line of Article 11 ? 

The word "merchant," while possibly covering a large 
portion of the vessels liable to capture, is not sufficiently 
broad to cover certain vessels not engaged in trade, 
which are and must be liable to capture and whose per- 
sonnel may be equally dangerous if not retained. The 
word "private" as covering the vessels other than 
"public" should be substituted. 

20681 4 



50 

(r) How should the last two lines of Article 11 read? 

The word " merchant " may be omitted, making the 
last clause read, "Any person in the naval service of 
the United States who pillages or maltreats, in any 
manner, any person found on board a vessel captured 
as a prize, shall be severely punished," if this last sen- 
tence is to be retained. It would be better, however, to 
make No. 17 of the "Articles for the Government of the 
Navy" and this last sentence of Article 11 of the Naval 
War Code to correspond by substituting one for the 
other or by revising both. No. 17 of the "Articles for 
the Government of the Navy " reads : "If any person in 
the Navy strips off the clothes of, or pillages, or in any 
manner maltreats, any person taken on board a prize, 
he shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may 
adjudge." The sentence as it stands in the code does 
not prescribe how the punishment shall be determined. 

Article 12. 

The United States of America acknowledge and pro- 
tect, in hostile countries occupied by their forces, religion 
and morality ; the persons of the inhabitants, especially 
those of women; and the sacredness of domestic rela- 
tions. Offenses to the contrary shall be rigorously pun- 
ished. 

(a) Should not the words, "private property" be in- 
serted before the word "religion " in line 3 of Article 12 ? 

The words "private property" should be inserted in 
Article 12 because Article XL VI of The Hague Conven- 
tion provides that in case of hostile occupation "Family 
honor and rights, individual lives and private property 
as well as religious convictions and liberty must be 
respected." 

This rule is immediately binding upon the naval force 
of the United States when constituting the hostile occu- 
pying force. Such force would then come without 
question under the rules of war on land. 

(b) Should not the whole article be rewritten and 
amplified in view of The Hague Convention provisions 
in regard to occupation of hostile territory ? If so, sug- 
gest the wording of the article and give reasons therefor. 



51 

It would be better in this case to substitute Article 
XL VI of The Hague Convention with respect to the laws 
and customs of war on land in place of Article 12 of the 
Naval War Code. Naval forces thus occupying hostile 
countries, by the simple fact of occupation become amen- 
able to the rules of The Hague Convention. This Article 
XL VI with an introductory clause would read : In hos- 
tile countries occupied by forces of the United States 
of America, "Family honor and rights, individual lives 
and private property as well as religious convictions 
and liberty, must be respected." There are also other 
Hague Convention articles that should be inserted here. 
(See Section III. — On Military Authority over Hostile 
Territory, p. 155.) 

Section III. — Belligerent and Neutral Vessels. 

Article 13. 

All public vesssels of the enemy are subject to capture, 
except those engaged in purely charitable or scientific 
pursuits, in voyages of discovery, or as hospital ships 
under the regulations hereinafter mentioned. 

Cartel and other vessels of the enemy, furnished with 
a proper safe-conduct, are exempt from capture unless 
engaged in trade or belligerent operations. 

(a) Would a vessel flying an enemy flag and carrying 
supplies to a neutral state where a famine exists be 
liable to capture and under what circumstances ? 

"A vessel flying an enemy flag and carrying supplies 
to a neutral state where a famine exists " might not be 
liable to capture if the vessel were public and the sup- 
plies were of a charitable nature destined for the relief 
of the famine. 

Such a use of supplies could not directly or indirectly 
aid the enemy, but rather by the amount of the supplies 
lessen the enemy's resources. Of course, if the supplies 
were destined for the neutral country simply because a 
higher price could be secured on account of existence 
of the famine, the vessel and supplies as engaged in a 
commercial undertaking would be liable to capture. 

The officer must judge, and in case of doubt should 
send the vessel into a port of his own state. 



52 

If the vessel be a private vessel of the enemy it is 
subject to capture under Article 14 of the Naval War 
Code. In time of war other arrangements must be made 
for the transportation of such supplies, e. g. , by neu- 
tral vessels, by enemy vessel under pass previously 
obtained, etc. 

(6) Should a vessel engaged in making deep-sea sound- 
ings be exempt from capture as engaged in scientific 
pursuits? 

Vessels engaged in deep-sea soundings might not be 
liable to capture because engaged in scientific pursuits, 
but from the nature of the vessel it could be directly 
utilized for hostilities, e. g. , the vessel could be used for 
grappling cables, or for cable laying, etc. 

The officer must judge, but such a vessel doubtless 
would be sent into port without exception, or if excep- 
tion were made it would be only in the rarest instances. 

(c) Are private vessels ' ' engaged in purely charitable 
or scientific pursuits, in voyages of discovery " liable to 
capture ? Why ? 

Private vessels ' ' engaged in purely charitable or scien- 
tific pursuits, in voyages of discovery" are liable to 
capture. While such vessels may in no way contribute 
toward strengthening the enemy, but rather divert a 
certain amount from his military resources, yet the 
difficulty of responsible control is so great that these 
vessels should be exempt only by grace of the com- 
mander in the immediate region, not by general rule. 

(cl) How should vessels engaged in religious and mis- 
sionary work be treated ? 

Vessels engaged in purely religious and missionary 
work would be exempt under this section as engaged in 
charitable pursuits provided they are. public vessels. 
Such cases, however, would be exceedingly rare. Pri- 
vate vessels thus engaged should be left as in the prior 
case (c) to the discretion of the commander. In all such 
cases, the ranking officer in the region acts on his own 
responsibility and should accordingly guard against 
possible injury from such vessels. He has absolute 
right to forbid the vessels to engage in religious and 



53 

missionary service during the continuance of hostilities, 
or even to capture these enemy vessels. 

(e) How should a boat belonging exclusively to the 
light-house service be treated ? 

Boats belonging exclusively to the light-house service 
should in general be liable to the penalties of unarmed 
vessels engaged in the enemy's service. JSTo exemption 
should be made by rule, as the service is, or may be, 
made of great military importance. 

An exception was formally made in time of war in 
the Prize Law of Japan in 1894, when exemption from 
capture was extended to "boats belonging to light- 
houses." The nature of the light-house service in 
China at this time may have prompted this extension. 1 

Article lJf. 

All merchant vessels of the enemy, except coast 
fishing vessels innocently employed, are subject to cap- 
ture, unless exempt by treaty stipulations. 

In case of military or other necessity, merchant 
vessels of an enemy may be destroyed, or they may be 
retained for the service of the Government. Whenever 
captured vessels, arms, munitions of war, or other ma- 
terial are destroyed or taken for the use of the United 
States before coming into the custody of a prize court, 
they shall be surveyed, appraised, and inventoried by 
persons as competent and impartial as can be obtained ; 
and the survey, appraisement, and inventory shall be 
sent to the prize court where proceedings are to be 
held. 

(a) Should the word "private" be inserted in the 
place of the word "merchant" in both instances in 
Article 14? 

The word "private" should be inserted in place of 
" merchant" in both instances in Article 14, for reasons 
already given under Article 11 (b). 

(b) What should be the treatment of vessels engaged 
in deep-sea fisheries ? Why ? 

Whale, seal, cod, or other fish not taken to market in 
natural form, but salted or otherwise changed, are lines 
of fisheries which render vessels so engaged liable to 

1 Takahashi, Cases an International Law, Chino- Japanese, p. 179. 



54 

capture because such vessels are primarily engaged in 
commercial ventures, and the shore population is not 
immediately dependent upon them. This position is 
fully discussed in the case of the Paquete Habana (175 
U. S., 677), with the following conclusions: 

The review of the precedents and authorities on the subject ap- 
pears to us abundantly to demonstrate that at the present day, by 
the general consent of the civilized nations of the world, and inde- 
pendently of any express treaty or other public act, it is an estab- 
lished rule of international law, founded on considerations of hu- 
manity to a poor and industrious order of men, and of the mutual 
convenience of belligerent states, that coast-fishing vessels, with their 
implements and supplies, cargoes and crews, unarmed and honestly 
pursuing their peaceful calling of catching and bringing in fresh 
fish, are exempt from capture as prize of war. 

The exemption, of course, does not apply to coast fishermen or 
their vessels if employed for a warlike purpose, or in any such way 
as to give aid or information to the enemy; nor when military or 
naval operations create a necessity to which all private interests 
must give way. 

Nor has the exemption been extended to ships or vessels employed 
on the high sea in taking whales or seals or cod or other fish which 
are not brought fresh to market, but are salted or otherwise cured 
and made a regular article of commerce. 

(c) Should the words "or other" in line 5 of Article 
14 be stricken out ? Why ? 

The words "or other" should not be stricken out. 
The action following could be justified not only on the 
ground of military necessity, but also on other grounds, 
as in case of dangerous epidemic on a captured ship, etc. 

Article 15. 

Merchant vessels of the enemy that have sailed from 
a port within the jurisdiction of the United States, prior 
to the declaration of war, shall be allowed to proceed to 
their destination, unless they are engaged in carrying 
contraband of war or are in the military service of the 
enemy. 

Merchant vessels of the enemy, in ports within the 
jurisdiction of the United States at the outbreak of war, 
shall be allowed thirty days after war has begun to load 
their cargoes and depart, and shall thereafter be per- 
mitted to proceed to their destination, unless they are 
engaged in carrying contraband of war or are in the 
military service of the enemy. 



55 

Merchant vessels of the enemy, which shall have 
sailed from any foreign port for any port within the 
jurisdiction of the United States before the declaration 
of war, shall be permitted to enter and discharge their 
cargo and thereafter to proceed to any port not blockaded. 

(For the discussion and final opinion of the Conference 
upon Article 15 as a whole, see page 57 and page 63. 
It was as set forth in the form of an amended article 
of the code as follows: 

"In absence of treaty governing the case, the treat- 
ment to be accorded private vessels of an enemy sailing 
to or from a port of the United States prior to the 
beginning of a war, or sojourning in a port of the United 
States at the beginning of a war will be determined by 
special instructions from the Navy Department.") 

(a) Should the word "private" be inserted for the 
word "merchant" in all instances in Article 15? 

The word "private" should be inserted in the place 
of the word "merchant" in line 1, of Article 15. In 
other cases the word "merchant" may remain. There 
should be some provisions in the code for the sojourn, 
etc., of private vessels other than merchant vessels. 

(b) Is not the first paragraph of Article 15 too liberal 
in its provisions ? 

The first paragraph of Article 15 is more liberal than 
has been admitted generally in earlier practice and from 
the point of view of many well qualified to give an 
opinion is too liberal, even considering the fact that the 
United States has uniformly been a leader in favoring 
the freedom of commerce. (See Questions on Article 15, 
page 57 ff.) 

(c) How should the words, "war has begun," line ( .», 
of Article 15, be interpreted? 

The words "war has begun" must be interpreted, in 
case a declaration is issued, as from the date of the 
declaration, and in case of no declaration, as from the 
first outbreak of hostilities. 

(d) Should a vessel of the enemy under the rule of 
the last paragraph of Article 15 be allowed to enter and 
discharge its cargo at a port for which it had regularly 
sailed before the declaration of war, even though that 



56 

port is blockaded, and thence ' ' proceed to any port not 
blockaded?" 

I. This case supposes that a port within the jurisdic- 
tion of the United States before the declaration of war 
has passed into the jurisdiction of the enemy and is 
blockaded by the United States, and that a merchant 
vessel of the enemy sailed for the port before the declara- 
tion of war. 

II. Or, again, it is assumed that this rule allows free 
trade with the territory which has passed from the 
United States jurisdiction into the hands "of the enemy, 
provided the merchant vessel of the enemy shall have 
sailed from the foreign port before the declaration of 
war. 

III. Or, again, would this rule not apply to ports 
within the jurisdiction of the enemy at the time of sail- 
ing before the declaration of war but within the juris- 
diction of the United States at the time of arrival of the 
vessel? 

While the rule as it stands possibly might provide for 
such a case or such cases, manifestly such is not the 
intent of the rule. 

The rule as it should read would provide for that class 
of enemy vessels which before the declaration sail for 
ports within the jurisdiction of the United States. The 
clause should therefore read: "Merchant vessels of 
the enemy, which before the declaration of war shall 
have sailed from any foreign port for any port within 
the jurisdiction of the United States." In regard to the 
last clause of the last paragraph, however, a question 
may be raised. This clause permits the vessel to pro- 
ceed to any port not blockaded. The wording would 
naturally prohibit departure to a port of the United 
States blockaded by the enemy as well as to ports of the 
enemy blockaded by the United States forces. This 
requirement may not always be advisable. Further, it 
allows the departure to certain other ports to which it 
might be advisable to prohibit sailing either from the 
nature of the port or from the nature of the service 
rendered by the vessel. 



57 

This clause seems too liberal and it would be advisable 
to retain the naming of the port of destination within 
the power of the United States, as the United States has 
permitted the entrance and departure of the vessel. The 
clause may therefore better read ''thereafter to pro- 
ceed to any port which the United States shall permit ;" 
also in second line from end change "permitted" to 
"allowed." 

The aim of this change is to retain for the United 
States fuller jurisdiction of enemy vessels in port during 
war, while not depriving them of reasonable freedom. 

(e) Should this article be rewritten ? If so, how should 
it read ? 

QUESTIONS ON ARTICLE 15. 

The first question is raised in regard to the vessels 
that are known as auxiliary or volunteer navy. Should 
these while still engaged in mercantile transactions be 
treated as private vessels under Article 15 or shall they 
be regarded as public vessels? There is a considerable 
difference of opinion in regard to the character of these 
vessels. Some regard such vessels within the prohibited 
class under the Declaration of Paris ; and others regard 
them as legitimate and necessary under the present 
system. 

Hall speaks of the volunteer navy as follows: "The 
sole real difference between privateers and a volunteer 
navy is then that the latter is under naval discipline, 
and it is not evident why privateers should not also be 
subjected to it. It can not be supposed that the Declara- 
tion of Paris was merely intended to put down the use 
of privateers governed by the precise regulations cus- 
tomary up to that time. Privateering was abandoned 
because it was thought that no armaments maintained 
at private cost, with the object of private gain, and 
often necessarily for a long time together beyond the 
reach of the regular naval forces of the state, could 
be kept under proper control. Whether this belief 
was well founded or not is another matter. If the 
organization intended to be given to the Prussian vol- 
unteer navy did not possess sufficient safeguards, some 



58 

analogous organization no doubt can be procured which 
would provide them. If so, there could be no objection 
on moral grounds to its use ; but unless p volunteer navy 
were brought into closer connection with the state than 
seems to have been the case in the Prussian project it 
would be difficult to show as a mere question of theory 
that its establishment did not constitute an evasion of 
the Declaration of Paris. 

"The incorporation of a part of the merchant marine 
of a country in its regular navy is, of course, to be dis- 
tinguished from such a measure as that above discussed. 
A marked instance of incorporation is supplied by the 
Russian volunteer fleet. The vessels are built at private 
cost, and in time of peace they carry the mercantile flag 
of their country; but their captain and at least one 
other officer hold commissions from their sovereign, 
they are under naval discipline, and they appear to be 
employed solely in public services, such as the convey- 
ance of convicts to the Russian possessions on the 
Pacific. Taking the circumstances as a whole, it is diffi- 
cult to regard the use of the mercantile flag as serious ; 
they are not merely vessels which in the event of war 
can be instantaneously converted into public vessels of 
the state, they are properly to be considered as already 
belonging to the imperial navy. The position of vessels 
belonging to the great French mail lines is different. 
They are commanded by a commissioned officer of the 
navy, but so long as peace lasts their employment is 
genuinely private and commercial; means is simply 
provided by which they can be placed under naval dis- 
cipline and turned into vessels of war so soon as an 
emergency arises. They are not now incorporated in 
the French navy, but incorporation would take place 
on the outbreak of hostilities." (International Law, 
4th ed., p. 549.) 

Of volunteer and auxiliary navies briefly it may be 
said : ' ' The relationship of private vessels to the state in 
time of war, which had been settled by the Declaration 
of Paris in 1856, was again made an issue by the act of 
Prussia in the Franco-German war. By a decree of 
July 24, 1870, the owners of vessels were invited to 



59 

equip them for war and place them under the naval 
discipline. The officers and crews were to be furnished 
by the owners of the vessels, to wear naval uniform, to 
sail under the North German flag, to take oath to the 
articles of war, and to receive certain premiums for cap- 
ture or destruction of the enemy's ships. The French 
authorities complained to the British that this was pri- 
vateering in disguise and a violation of the Declaration 
of Paris. The law officers of the crown declared that 
there was 'a substantial difference' between such a 
volunteer navy and a system of privateering, and that 
the action of Prussia was not contrary to the Declara- 
tion of Paris. "With this position some authorities 
agree, while others dissent. The weight of the act as a 
precedent is less on account of the fact that no ships 
of this navy ever put to sea. Similarly, the plan of 
Greece for a volunteer navy in 1897 was never put into 
operation. 

1 ' Russia, in view of possible hostilities with England 
in 1877-1878, accepted the offer of certain citizens to 
incorporate into the navy during the war vessels pri- 
vately purchased and owned. Such vessels are still 
numbered in the 'volunteer fleet,' and, though pri- 
vately owned and managed, are, since 188(3, under the 
Admiralty. These vessels may easily be converted into 
cruisers, and are, so far as possible, favored with gov- 
ernment service. There seems to be little question as 
to the propriety of such a relationship between the state 
and the vessels which may be used in war. 

"Still less open to objection is the plan adopted by 
Great Britain in 1887 and by the United States in 1892, 
by which these governments, through agreements with 
certain of their great steamship lines, could hire or pur- 
chase at a fixed price certain specified vessels for use 
in case of war. The construction of such vessels is sub- 
ject to government approval, and certain subsidies are 
granted to these companies. In time of war both officers 
and men must belong to the public forces. The plans 
of Russia, Great Britain, and the United States have 
met with little criticism." (Wilson and Tucker, Inter- 
national Law, 2d ed., p. 255.) 



60 

Lawrence declares his opinion as follows: "The 
legality of a volnnteer navy must depend, like the 
legality of a volnnteer army, npon the closeness of its 
connection with the state, and the securities it affords 
for a due observance of the laws of war." (Principles of 
International Law, p. 435.) 

Article 9 of this code (which earlier was voted to be 
stricken out as unessential) certainly Tecognizes under 
the term "auxiliaries," the officers and men of such 
vessels as in the category of armed forces when com- 
missioned and perhaps at all times of war. 

The status of a private vessel which has assumed cer- 
tain public obligations is in some respects shown in the 
decision in regard to the Panama, rendered by the United 
States Supreme Court on February 26, 1900. The re'sume' 
of the case is as follows : 

The Panama was a steamship of 1,432 tons register, carrying a 
crew of seventy-one men, all told, owned by a Spanish corporation, 
sailing under the Spanish flag, having a commission as a royal mail 
ship from the Government of Spain, and plying from and to New 
York and Havana and various Mexican ports, with general cargoes, 
passengers, and mails. At the time of her capture, she was on a 
voyage from New York to Havana, and had on board two breech- 
loading Hontoria guns of 9 centimeters bore, one mounted on each 
side of the ship, one Maxim rapid-firing gun on the bridge, twenty 
Remington rifles, and ten Mauser rifles, with ammunition for all the 
guns and rifles, and thirty or forty cutlasses. The guns had been 
put on board three years before, and the small arms and ammuni- 
tion had been on board a year or more. Her whole armament had 
been put on board by the company in compliance with its mail con- 
tract with the Spanish Government (made more than eleven years 
before, and still in force), which specifically required every mail 
steamship of the company to "take on board, for her own defense," 
such an armament, with the exception of the Maxim gun and the 
Mauser rifles. 

That contract contains many provisions looking to the use of the 
company's steamships by the Spanish Government as vessels of war. 
Among other things, it requires that each vessel shall have the 
capacity to carry 500 enlisted men; that that government, upon 
inspection of her plans as prepared for commercial and postal pur- 
poses, may order her deck and sides to be strengthened so as to sup- 
port additional artillery; and that, in case of the suspension of the 
mail service by naval war, or by hostilities in any of ths seas or 
ports visited by the company's vessels, the government may take 
possession of them with their equipment and supplies, at a valuation 



Gl 

to be made by a commission; and shall at the termination of the 
war return them to the company, paying 5 per cent on the valuation 
while it has them in its service, as well as an indemnity for any 
diminution in their value. 

The Panama was not a neutral vessel; but she was enemy prop- 
erty, and as such, even if she carried no arms (either as part of her 
equipment, or as cargo) , would be liable to capture, unless protected 
by the President's proclamation. 

It may be assumed that a primary object of her armament, and in 
the time of peace, its only object, was for purposes of defense. But 
that armament was not of itself inconsiderable, as appears, not only 
from the undisputed facts of the case, but from the action of the 
district court, upon the application of the commodore commanding 
at the port where the court was held, and on the recommendation of 
the prize commissioners, directing her arms and ammunition to be 
delivered to the commodore for the use of the Navy Department. 
And the contract of her owner with the Spanish Government, pur- 
suant to which the armament had been put on board, expressly 
provided that, in case of war, that government might take posses- 
sion of the vessel with her equipment, increase her armament, and 
use her as a war vessel; and, in these and other provisions, evidently 
contemplated her use for hostile purposes in time of war. 

She was, then, enemy property, bound for an enemy port, carry- 
ing an armament susceptible of use for hostile purposes, and herself 
liable, upon arrival in that port, to be appropriated by the enemy 
to such purposes. 

The intent of the fourth clause of the President's proclamation 
was to exempt for a time from capture peaceful commercial vessels; 
not to assist the enemy in obtaining weapons of war. This clause 
exempts "Spanish merchant vessels" only, and expressly declares 
that it shall not apply to ' ' Spanish vessels having on board any 
officer in the military or naval service of the enemy, or any coal 
(except such as may be necessary for their voyage) , or any other 
article prohibited or contraband of war, or any dispatch of or to the 
Spanish Government." 

Upon full consideration of this case, this court is of the opinion 
that the proclamation, expressly declaring that the exemption shall 
not apply to any Spanish vessel having on board any article prohib- 
ited or contraband of war, or a single military or naval officer, or 
even a dispatch, of the enemy, can not reasonably be construed as 
including, in the description of "Spanish merchant vessels" which 
are to be temporarily exempt from capture, a Spanish vessel owned 
by a subject of the enemy; having an armanent fit for hostile use; 
intended, in the event of war, to be used as a war vessel; destined to 
a port of the enemy: and liable, on arriving there, to be taken pen- 
sion of by the enemy, and employed as an auxiliary cruiser of the 
enemy's navy, in the war with this country. 

The result is, that the Panama was lawfully captured and con- 
demned, and that the decree of the district court must be affirmed. 
(176 U. S.,547.) 



62 

Such vessels are certainly potentially war vessels and 
are certainly designed and liable to conversion for nse 
in war. In no case are such vessels purely private ves- 
sels because the Government has a prior right to con- 
vert them to its use under terms of their registration or 
by virtue of specific contract as the case may be. (27 
Stat. L., act May 10, 1892.) 

This being the case it would be for the Government 
to enunciate its policy at the time in regard to such 
vessels and to determine whether such vessels were 
actually " in the military service of the enemy" or not. 
The status of such auxiliary vessels being at present 
uncertain, it would be advisable to allow the wording 
of the code in Article 9 to stand as it is sufficiently broad 
to permit seizure should policy or act of the vessel re- 
quire seizure while not throwing the responsibility upon 
the naval officer to decide in regard to a class of vessels 
whose status is uncertain. If such vessels are clearly 
in the military service of the enemy, they are not by 
Article 15 entitled to exemption. In any case the status 
of auxiliary vessels should be made clear. 

Again, while it can not be said that the provisions of 
the first clause of Article 15 are absolutely established 
in international law, they are, however, so well estab- 
lished that the privilege of entry and departure of bona 
fide private vessels would be allowed by all nations. It 
was so allowed in the Crimean war, 1854 ; in the Franco- 
Prussian war of 1870, and Russo-Turkish war of 1877, 
and in the Spanish-American war of 1898 by the 
United States. It is proper that some provision upon 
this matter be made known to the officers of the Navy 
eithenin the code or elsewhere. 

In regard to the "thirty days" allowance mentioned 
in the second clause of Article 15, it may be said that 
both longer and shorter times have been allowed, that it 
is now general to allow some time, and that probably the 
naval department of the Government is not competent 
to fix the length of time. Therefore it would be well to 
word the clause so as to read : "Merchant vessels of the 
enemy in ports within the jurisdiction of the United 



63 

States at outbreak of war when allowed a specified time 
after war has begun to load their cargoes and depart, 
shall thereafter be permitted to proceed to their desti- 
nation, unless they are engaged in carrying contraband 
of war or are in the military service of the enemy." 
Thus the Government is not committed beyond what 
international law sanctions though taking a reasonably 
liberal position. 

It should be observed that this whole Article 15 gives 
to commerce between the enemy and the United States 
a measure of exemption that is not given to the com- 
merce between the enemy and a neutral. This is in one 
way illogical yet it is desirable to give the widest ex- 
emption to commerce as the destruction of commerce 
does not bring any commensurate military advantage. 

OPINION OF COMMITTEE OF THE CONFERENCE. 

In view of the objections raised upon various grounds 
to Article 15, it was voted by the Conference that a com- 
mittee consider what changes should be made therein. 
This committee, after debating the merits of positive 
positions, decided that in view of* disagreement among 
authorities, and in practice, and pending an international 
convention, Article 15 should read: "In absence of 
treaty governing the case, the treatment to be accorded 
private vessels of an enemy sailing prior to the begin- 
ning of a war, to or from a port of the United States or 
sojourning in a port of the United States at the begin- 
ning of a war, will be determined by special instructions 
from the Navy Department." 

This was the action taken by the Navy Department 
in publishing General Order No. 492 on June 20, 1898. 
This order, "prepared by the Department of State " and 
"published for the information and guidance of the 
naval service," contains several clauses not so liberal 
toward neutrals as those in Article 15 of the Naval War 
Code, though very liberal in their provisions. Tliis 
order states in section 17 that merchant vessels of tin' 
enemy "are good prize, and maybe seized anywhere, 
except in neutral waters." To this rule, however, the 



64 

President's proclamation of April 26, 1898, in order to 
provide against undne hardships in the beginning of the 
war, made the following exceptions : 

4. Spanish merchant vessels in any ports or places within the 
United States, shall be allowed till May 21 ; 1898, inclusive, for load- 
ing their cargoes and departing from such ports or places; and such 
Spanish merchant vessels, if met at sea by any United States ship, 
shall be permitted to continue their voyage, if, on examination of 
their papers, it shall appear that their cargoes were taken on board 
before the expiration of the above term: Provided, That nothing 
herein contained shall apply to Spanish vessels having on board any 
officer in the military or naval service of the enemy, or any coal 
(except such as may be necessary for their voyage), or any other 
article prohibited or contraband of war, or any dispatch of or to the 
Spanish Government. 

5. Any Spanish merchant vessel which, prior to April 21, 1898, 
shall have sailed from any foreign port bound for any port or place 
in the United States, shall be permitted to enter such port or place, 
and to discharge her cargo, and afterwards forthwith to depart with- 
out molestation; and any such vessel, if met at sea by any United 
States ship, shall be permitted to continue her voyage to any port 
not blockaded. 

The following clauses of General Order 492 of the 
ISTavy Department contain the material applying to this 
subject: 

3. Neutral vessels are entitled to notification of a blockade before 
they can be made prize for its attempted violation. The character 
of this notification is not material. It may be actual, as by a vessel 
of the blockading force, or constructive, as by a proclamation of the 
government maintaining the blockade, or by common notoriety. 
If a neutral vessel can be shown to have had notice of the blockade 
in any way, she is good prize and should be sent in for adjudication; 
but, should formal notice not have been given, the rule of construc- 
tive knowledge arising from notoriety should be construed in a 
manner liberal to the neutral. 

4. Vessels appearing before a blockaded port, having sailed with- 
out notification, are entitled to actual notice by a blockading vessel. 
They should be boarded by an officer, who should enter in the ship's 
log the fact of such notice, such entry to include the name of the 
blockading vessel giving notice, the extent of the blockade, the date 
and place, verified by his official signature. The vessel is then to be 
set free; and should she again attempt to enter the same or any 
other blockaded port as to which she has had notice she is good 
prize. 

7. In accordance with the rule adopted by the United States in the 
existing war with Spain, neutral vessels found in port at the time of 



65 

the establishment of a blockade will, unless otherwise ordered by 
the United States, be allowed thirty days from the establishment of 
the blockade to load their cargoes and depart from such port. 

Article 16. 

Neutral vessels in the military or naval service of the 
enemy, or under the control of the enemy for military 
or naval purposes, are subject to capture or destruction. 

What should be done in case a neutral vessel within 
neutral territory is found to be transmitting messages 
to the enemy by means of wireless telegraphy ? 

Article 16 covers the rule for neutral vessels within 
the field of belligerent action. The code does not cover 
the field of peaceful action which neutral waters are 
ever supposed to be. 

In case a neutral vessel within neutral territory is 
found to be transmitting messages to the enemy by wire- 
less telegraphy the vessel is guilty of unneutral service 
and is liable to the penalties consequent upon such service 
when within the field of belligerent action, but so long 
as she remains within neutral waters while the service 
is unchanged so far as the neutral vessel is concerned, 
no belligerent act may be performed against the neutral 
vessel in neutral territory. The act should be reported 
to the government in whose jurisdiction the vessel is 
with a request that the vessel be restrained and it should 
also be reported to the home government for diplomatic 
consideration. 

It would be permissible to use any means to intercept 
the messages outside of neutral jurisdiction. The case 
is somewhat parallel to that of submarine telegraphy. 
The international law status of wireless telegraphy is as 
yet undefined. Doubtless agreements in regard to the 
use of this means of communication must be made. 

Article 17. 

Vessels of war of the United States may take shelter 
during war in a neutral port subject to the limitations 
that the authorities of the port may prescribe as to the 
number of belligerent vessels to be admitted into the 
port at any one time. This shelter, which is allowed 

20681 5 



66 

by comity of nations, may be availed of for the purpose 
of evading the enemy, from stress of weather, or to ob- 
tain supplies or repairs that the vessel needs to enable 
her to continue her voyage in safety and to reach the 
nearest port of her own country. 

(a) Would it be a ground for protest if a neutral state 
prescribed other limitations than those in regard to 
"the number of belligerent vessels to be admitted into 
the port at any one time ? " 

It would be no ground for protest if a neutral pre- 
scribed other limitations than those in regard to "the 
number of belligerent vessels to be admitted into the 
port at any one time." The neutral port regulations 
are matters within neutral competence, as is shown by 
Article 18 and as is affirmed by all writers on interna- 
tional law. 

(b) How should the words "to continue her voyage 
in safety " be interpreted ? Do these words refer to the 
clause "to obtain supplies" in line 7 of Article 17? 

"To continue her voyage in safety" must be inter- 
preted with reference to the last clause of Article 18, 
which forbids increase in "armament military stores, 
or in the number of the crew of a vessel of war." 

The wording is too free according to the generally 
accepted standards as "safety" may be made to apply 
to security from enemies as well as from the elements 
of nature. The generally admitted repairs and supplies 
are those necessary for the continuance of the voyage 
to the nearest home port with reference to the risks due 
to natural causes. 

Further, the supplies are by the last clause of Article 
18 limited to those not military in their nature. "To 
continue her voyage in safety" refers to one or both 
of the words "supplies" or "repairs" with the above- 
mentioned restrictions on the nature of the supplies. 

Article 18. 

Such vessel or vessels must conform to the regulations 
prescribed by the authorities of the neutral port with 
respect to the place of anchorage, the limitation of the 
stay of the vessel in port, and the time to elapse before 



67 

sailing in pursuit or after the departure of a vessel of the 
enemy. 

No increase in the armament, military stores, or in the 
number of the crew of a vessel of war of the United States 
shall be attempted during the stay of such vessel in a 
neutral port. 

Might it not often be necessary to violate the provi- 
sions of the last sentence of Article 18 in order to obtain 
supplies or repairs sufficient to enable a vessel "to con- 
tinue her voyage in safety ?" 

The last sentence in Article 18 is in accord with the 
generally accepted opinion of the rule of correct action 
in a neutral port. The phrase "to continue her voyage 
in safety " should be interpreted as above stated with 
reference to safety from the dangers of the sea rather 
than dangers from enemies. The Netherlands issued 
the following during the war between the United States 
and Spain: "It is forbidden to supply arms or ammu- 
nition to the ships of war or privateers of the powers 
at war, as also to render them any assistance whatever 
in the increasing of their crews, arming, or equipment, 
and in general to voluntarily perform any act that might 
endanger the neutrality of the state." 

Article 19. 

A neutral vessel carrying the goods of an enemy is, 
with her cargo, exempt from capture, except when car- 
rying contraband of war or endeavoring to evade a 
blockade. 

Should the words "or guilty of unneutral service" be 
added after the word "blockade" in the last line of Ar- 
ticle 19? 

With the increase in the forms of service which neu- 
tral vessels may render, they should certainly have no 
more liberal treatment than mail steamers in Article 20, 
for mail steamers are or may be under a partial gov- 
srnment control, and these are liable to detention for 
"violation of the laws of war with respect to contra- 
band blockade, or unneutral service." 

The words "or guilty of unneutral service" should 
certainly be added to Article 19. 



68 
Article 20. 

A neutral vessel carrying hostile dispatches, when 
sailing as a dispatch vessel practically in the service of 
the enemy, is liable to seizure. Mail steamers under 
neutral flags carrying such dispatches in the regular and 
customary manner, either as a part of their mail in their 
mail bags, or separately as a matter of accommodation 
and without special arrangement or remuneration, are 
not liable to seizure and should not be detained, except 
upon clear grounds of suspicion of a violation of the 
laws of war with respect to contraband, blockade, or 
unneutral service, in which case the mail bags must be 
forwarded with seals unbroken. 

(a) Would the transmission of hostile dispatches re- 
ceived by a neutral vessel on the high sea make that 
vessel liable to seizure; if so, for how long a time? 

Dana, in note 228 to Wheaton's International Law, 
says: 

Suppose a neutral vessel to transmit signals between two portions 
of a fleet engaged in hostile combined operations, and not in sight 
of each other. She is doubtless liable to condemnation. It is imma- 
terial whether these squadrons are at sea or in ports of their own 
country or in neutral ports, or how far they are apart or how impor- 
tant the signals may be to the general results of the war, or whether 
the neutral transmits them directly or through a repeating neutral 
vessel. The nature of the communication establishes its final desti- 
nation and it is immaterial how far the delinquent carries it on its 
way. The reason of the condemnation is the nature of the service in 
which the neutral is engaged. 

The neutral vessel transmitting hostile dispatches is 
liable to seizure as engaged in unneutral service. Tay- 
lor says : 

No overt act could be performed by a neutral in aid of a bellig- 
erent more clearly unlawful than the transmission of signals or the 
carrying of messages between two portions of a fleet engaged in con- 
cert in hostile operations, and not in sight of each other. It makes 
no difference whether such fleets or squadrons are in ports of their 
own country, in neutral ports, or on the high seas, or whether such 
signals are transmitted by the neutral directly or through a repeat- 
ing neutral vessel. No matter whether such communications be 
verbal or written, important or unimportant to the general results 
of the war, as the criminality of the act depends alone upon the 
nature of the service in which the neutral is engaged. The same 
principle extends to signalling or bearing of messages between a 



69 

land force and a fleet, or to the laying of a cable to be used chiefly 
or exclusively for hostile purposes. (International Public Law, 
p. 754, sec. 670.) 

Of the nature of such, service Lawrence well says : 

We are now in a position to distinguish clearly between the offense 
of carrying contraband and the offense of engaging in unneutral 
service. They are unlike in nature, unlike in proof, and unlike in 
penalty. To carry contraband is to engage in an ordinary trading 
transaction which is directed toward a belligerent community sim- 
ply because a better market is likely to be found there than else- 
where. To perform unneutral service is to interfere in the struggle 
by doing in aid of a belligerent acts which are in themselves not 
mercantile, but warlike. In order that a cargo of contraband may 
be condemned as good prize, the captors must show that it was on 
the way to a belligerent destination. If without subterfuge it is 
bound to a neutral port, the voyage is innocent, whatever may be 
the nature of the goods. In the case of unneutral service the desti- 
nation of the captured vessel is immaterial. The nature of her 
mission is the all-important point. She may be seized and confis- 
cated when sailing betwen two neutral ports. The penalty for car- 
rying contraband is the forfeiture of the forbidden goods, the ship 
being retained as prize of war only under special circumstances. 
The penalty for unneutral service is first and foremost the confisca- 
tion of the vessel, the goods on board being condemned when the 
owner is involved or when fraud and concealment have been re- 
sorted to. 

Nothing but confusion can arise from attempting to treat together 
offenses so widely divergent as the two now under consideration. 
(Principles of International Law, p. 633.) 

The liability to seizure attaches to the vessel in conse- 
quence of the act performed, not because of the possession 
of the dispatches (which in case of wireless telegraphic 
dispatches might be outside of the vessel almost imme- 
diately) . The nature of the act is or may be more nox- 
ious than that of breaking a blockade or any other act 
for which liability attaches to the vessel till the comple- 
tion of the voyage and return to the home port. Lia- 
bility therefore to seizure attaches to the vessel guilty 
of the transmission of such dispatches till return to the 
home port. 

(6) Under Article 20, would repetition by a neutral 
vessel of signals made by a belligerent vessel to a remote 
belligerent vessel make the neutral vessel liable to 
seizure, all the vessels being on the high sea ? 



70 

Yes, as above under clause allowing seizure on ground 
of unneutral service. 

(c) Should the Naval War Code contain an article upon 
unneutral service ? If so, what should it cover and how 
should it read ? 

No. It is better to leave that to the progress of opin- 
ion as the range of action to be considered under unneu- 
tral service will continually change. Lawrence, after 
mentioning that — 

A neutral ship is forbidden to — * 

( 1 ) Transmit certain kinds of signals or messages for a belligerent; 

(2) Carry certain kinds of dispatches for a belligerent; 

(3) Transport certain kinds of persons in the service of a bellig- 
erent; 

says: 

The most important and the most frequently performed unneutral 
services are arranged under the three heads we have just enumer- 
ated. But the classification is by no means exhaustive. There are 
other ways of giving unlawful aid to belligerents besides those we 
have been considering. The exigencies of warfare are so numerous 
and so changeful that no one can describe beforehand every possible 
mode in which a neutral ship may make herself into a transport in 
the service of one or other of the belligerents. The principle of the 
law is clear. It forbids anything approaching to an actual partici- 
pation in the war. The application of the principle must be settled 
in each case as it arises. Among the acts which it assuredly covers 
we may mention transferring provisions, coals, or ammunition from 
one belligerent ship to another at sea, and showing the channel to a 
fleet advancing for a hostile attack. (Principles of International 
Law, pp. 625 and 629.) 

(d) Should the code contain an article in regard to the 
transfer of vessels from a belligerent to a neutral flag 
in the time of war? 

No. This is in the main a matter of domestic law and 
may change with the change of national policy, there- 
fore the code should contain no provision in regard to 
such transfer. It would be advisable, however, that 
some more definite regulations on the matter of such 
transfer should be made by international agreement in 
so far as this transfer affects international relations. 
(See Duboc, Le Droit de Visite, Chap. IV.) 



71 

Section IV. — Hospital Ships — the Shipwrecked, 
Sick, and Wounded. 

• Article 21. 

Military hospital ships — that is to say, vessels con- 
structed or fitted out by the belligerent States for the 
special and sole purpose of assisting the wounded, sick, 
or shipwrecked, and whose names have been communi- 
cated to the respective Powers at the opening or in the 
course of hostilities, and in any case before they are so 
employed, shall be respected, and are not liable to cap- 
ture during the period of hostilities. 

Such ships shall not be classed with war ships with 
respect to the matter of sojourn in a neutral port. 

Article 22. 

Hospital ships fitted out, in whole or in part, at the 
expense of private individuals or of officially recognized 
relief societies, shall likewise be respected and exempt 
from capture, provided the belligerent Power to whom 
they are subject has given them an official commission 
and has notified the hostile Power of the names of such 
ships at the beginning or in the course of hostilities, 
and in any case before they are employed. 

These ships should be furnished with a certificate, 
issued by the proper authorities, setting forth that they 
were under the control of such authorities during their 
equipment and at the time of their final departure. 

Article 23. 

The vessels mentioned in Articles 21 and 22 shall 
afford relief and assistance to the wounded, sick, and 
shipwrecked of the belligerents without distinction of 
nationality. 

It is strictly forbidden to use these vessels for any 
military purpose. 

These vessels must not in any way hamper the move- 
ments of the combatants. 

During and immediately after engagements they act 
at their own risk and peril. 

The belligerents have the right to control and visit 
such vessels ; they may decline their cooperation, require 
them to withdraw, prescribe for them a fixed course, 
and place a commissioner on board; they may even 
detain them, if required by military necessity. 

When practicable, the belligerents shall enter upon 
the log of hospital ships such orders as they may give 
them. 



n 

Article 2J/.. 

Military hospital ships shall be distinguished by being 
painted white outside, with a horizontal band of green 
about 1| meters wide. 

The ships designated in Article 22 shall be distin- 
guished by being painted white outside, with a hori- 
zontal band of red about 1£ meters wide. 

The boats of hospital ships, as well as small craft that 
may be devoted to hospital service, shall be distinguished 
by being painted in the same colors. 

Hospital ships shall, in general, make themselves 
^known by hoisting, with their national flag, the white 
flag with a red cross prescribed by the Geneva Conven- 
tion. 

Article 25. 

Merchant vessels, yachts, or neutral vessels that hap- 
pen to be in the vicinity of active maritime hostilities, 
may gather up the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked of 
the belligerents. Such vessels, after this service has 
been performed, shall report to the belligerent com- 
mander controlling the waters thereabouts, for future 
directions, and while accompanying a belligerent will 
be, in all cases, under his orders ; and, if a neutral, be 
designated by the national flag of that belligerent car- 
ried at the foremasthead, with the red-cross flag flying 
immediately under it. 

These vessels are subject to capture for any violation 
of neutrality that they may commit. Any attempt to 
carry off such wounded, sick, and shipwrecked, without 
permission, is a violation of neutrality. They are also 
subject, in general, to the provisions of Article 23. 

Article 26. 

The religious, medical, and hospital personnel of any 
vessel captured during hostilities shall be inviolable and 
not subject to be made prisoners of war. They shall 
be permitted, upon leaving the ship, to carry with them 
those articles and instruments of surgery which are 
their private property. 

Such personnel shall continue to exercise their func- 
tions as long as may be necessary, whereupon they may 
withdraw when the commander in chief deems it pos- 
sible to do so. 

The belligerents shall insure to such personnel, when 
falling into their hands, the free exercise of their 
functions, the receipt of salaries, and entire freedom of 
movement, unless a military necessity prevents. 



73 
Article 27. 

Sailors and soldiers, embarked when sick or wounded, 
shall be protected and cared for by the captors, no 
matter to what nation they may belong. 

Article 28. 

The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of the enemy, 
who are captured, are considered prisoners of war. The 
captor must decide, according to circumstances, whether 
it is expedient to keep them or send them to a port of 
his own country, to a neutral port, or even to a port 
of the enemy. In the last case, the prisoners thus 
returned to their country can not serve again during 
the period of the war. 

Article 29. 

The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick who are landed 
at a neutral port with the consent of the local authori- 
ties, shall, unless there exist an agreement to the con- 
trary between the neutral State and the belligerent 
States, agree that they will not again take part in the 
operations of war. 

The expenses of hospital care and of internment shall 
be borne by the State to which such shipwrecked, 
wounded, or sick belong. 

(a) Should there be inserted after Article 22 an arti- 
cle which is as follows : ' ' Hospital ships, fitted out in 
whole or in part at the expense of private individuals 
or of officially recognized societies of neutral states, 
shall be respected and exempt from capture, provided 
the neutral power to whom they are subject has given 
them an official commission and has notified the bellig- 
erent powers of the names of such ships at the begin- 
ning or in the course of hostilities and in any case 
before they are employed?" 

An article embodying the provisions of Article 3 of 
The Hague Convention for the Adaptation to Maritime 
Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of 
August 22, 1864, which is to the intent of the article ;is 
stated in situation 21 (a), should be inserted, as the arti- 
cle is binding upon the Navy of the United States in 



74 

accordance with the proclamation of November 1, 1901, 
by the President. This article is as follows: 

Art. III. Hospital ships, equipped wholly or in part at the cost of 
private individuals or officially recognized societies of neutral coun- 
tries, shall be respected and exempt from capture, if the neutral 
power to whom they belong has given them an official commission 
and notified their names to the belligerent powers at the commence- 
ment of or during hostilities, and in any case before they are 
employed. 

This article should be made number 23. 

In Article 22, after "societies," the words "of a bel- 
ligerent state " should be inserted. 

The numbering of the following articles, 23, 24, 25, 
26, 27, 28 should be advanced one number. 

The first line of present Article 23 (new 24) should 
read: "The vessels mentioned in Articles 21, 22, and 
23," etc. 

Article 24, line four, should read "in articles 22 and 23." 

Article 25, last line, should read "24" in place of "23." 

(b) Would the desire that the further movements of 
a vessel or vessels of war be secret be sufficient reason 
to justify a commander in requiring hospital ships to 
withdraw ? 

The desire for secrecy of movement would be sufficient 
reason to require the withdrawal of hospital ships under 
the fifth clause of present Article 23. 

(c) Article VI of The Hague Convention is as follows : 

Neutral merchantmen, yachts, or vessels having or taking on 
board sick, wounded, or shipwrecked of the belligerents, can not be 
captured for so doing, but they are liable to capture for any viola- 
tion of neutrality they may have committed. 

As the United States has adopted this rule, should 
the regulations prescribed in Article 25 be changed or 
stricken out? Consider whether, in view of the fact 
that the United States has adopted the above Article YI 
of The Hague Convention, which allows neutral vessels 
to take on board sick, etc., and to be exempt from cap- 
ture for so doing, the second sentence of Article 25 of 
the Naval War Code can be" enforced. Certain states 
have already objected to an attempt to compel a neutral 
vessel engaged in this service to fly a flag of a belligerent. 



75 

It is necessary to consider the course of discussion 
upon Article VI of The Hague Convention, which is 
set forth by Captain Mahan in his report to the United 
States Commission in July, 1899 : 

The general desirability of giving to hospital vessels the utmost 
immunity consistent with the vigorous prosecution of war was 
generally conceded and met, in fact, with no opposition; but it was 
justly remarked at the outset that measures must be taken to put 
under efficient control of the belligerents all hospital ships fitted 
out by private benevolence, or by neutrals, whether associations or 
individuals. It is evident that unless such control is explicitly 
affirmed, and unless the various cases that may arise, in which it 
may be needed, are, as far as possible, foreseen and provided for, 
incidents may well occur which will bring into inevitable dis- 
credit the whole system of neutral vessels, hospital or others, 
devoted to the benevolent assistance of the sufferers in war. 

The first suggestion, offered almost immediately, was that the 
simplest method of avoiding such inconvenience would be for the 
said neutral vessels, being engaged in service identical with that of 
belligerent hospital vessels to which it was proposed to extend the 
utmost possible immunity, should frankly enter the belligerent 
service by hoisting the flag of the belligerent to which it offered its 
services. This being permitted by general consent, and for purposes 
purely humanitarian, would constitute no breach of neutrality, while 
the control of either belligerent, when in presence, could be exercised 
without raising those vexed questions of neutral rights which the 
experience of maritime warfare shows to be among the most diffi- 
cult and delicate problems that belligerents have to encounter. 

This proposition was supported by me as being the surest mode 
of avoiding difficulties easy to be foreseen, and which in my judg- 
ment are wholly unprovided for by the articles adopted by the 
Conference. The neutral ship is, by common consent, permitted to 
identify itself with the belligerent and his operations for certain 
laudable purposes; why not for the time assume the belligerent's 
flag ? The reasoning of the opposition was that such vessels should 
be considered in the same light as national vessels, and that to re- 
quire them to hoist a foreign flag would be derogatory (porterait 
atteinte) to the sovereignty of the State to which they belonged. 
This view prevailed. (Holls, Peace Conference at The Hague, p. 498. ) 

As The Hague rule reads, neutral vessels are not liable 
to capture for taking on board sick, wounded, or ship- 
wrecked, but are liable to capture for any violation of 
neutrality. Nothing is specified in regard to the action 
of the neutral vessel after the time of taking on board 
the sick, etc., unless such vessel violates neutrality. 



76 

It can not be supposed, however, that such a vessel 
will be given greater freedom by the belligerent than is 
given to a vessel which a neutral, under Article III of 
The Hague Convention, fits out as a hospital ship. 
These neutral vessels are subject to the regulations of 
present Article 23, which gives to the belligerent the 
right of control. It is reasonable that as much authority 
be considered as resting in the belligerent in regard to 
neutral vessels not commissioned as hospital ships, but 
for the time being acting as such or as rescue ships. 

It would be sufficient to give Article VI of The Hague 
Convention with the statement that such vessels are in 
general subject to the provisions of present Article 23. 
The more detailed specifications in regard to treatment 
would better be left to the time of the event. The re- 
porting to the commander, etc. , is liable to be confusing 
at a time of action. Article 25 should be worded to 
conform to The Hague Convention, Article VI. "Neu- 
tral merchantmen, yachts, or vessels having or taking 
on board sick, wounded, or shipwrecked of the belliger- 
ents can not be captured for so doing, but they are liable 
to capture for any violation of neutrality they may have 
committed." To this should be added the last two 
clauses of present Article 23. 

(d) Should the word ' ' considered " in the second line 
of Article 28 be retained? 

The word "considered" implies that while the state 
of those captured may be something other than prisoners 
of war, yet they are regarded by the United States as 
such. 

The word should be stricken out. They are prisoners 
of war. 

(e) Should Article 29 be retained? 

Article 29 is in effect Article 10 of The Hague Con- 
vention, which was not adopted by the United States and 
not approved by several other nations. This Article 10 
reads as follows : 

The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick who shall be landed at a neutral 
port, with the consent of the local authorities, must, in the absence 
of a contrary arrangement between the neutral state and the bel- 
ligerents, be guarded by the neutral state, so that they can not 



77 

again take part in the military operations. The expense of enter- 
tainment and detention shall be borne by the state to which the 
wounded, shipwrecked, or sick shall belong. (Holls, Peace Confer- 
ence at The Hague, p. 127.) 

As this appears as "excluded" in the Convention to 
which the United States is a party, it shonld not be 
made a part of the United States Naval War Code nntil 
there is international agreement upon its terms. 

(/) Would it not be best to insert The Hague Con- 
vention for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the 
Principles of the Geneva Convention in place of Section 
IV of the code? 

As the United States has formally adopted the provi- 
sions of The Hague Convention bearing on Section IV, 
and as those provisions are therefore in effect for the 
officers of the United States Navy, it would seem better 
not to have two sets of rules upon the same subject, but 
rather to have actual rules with such supplementary 
statements as may seem essential. Therefore The 
Hague Rules as named should be inserted in place of 
Section IV. 

(g) The provisions of the above-mentioned Hague 
Convention are binding only upon contracting powers. 
Would it not be better to thus limit the provisions of 
the code? 

The provisions of the code should follow those of The 
Hague Convention. 

Section V. — The Exercise of the Right of Search. 

Article SO. 

The exercise of the right of search during war shall 
be confined to properly commissioned and authorized 
vessels of war. Convoys of neutral merchant vessels, 
under escort of vessels of war of their own State, are 
exempt from the right of search upon proper assurances, 
based on thorough examination, from the commander 
of the convoy. 

(a) Should the right of convoy be restricted to states 
with which the United States has treaties allowing this 
right, or should it remain general ? 



78 

Great Britain alone has not yet acknowledged the 
right of neutral convoy as generally binding. The rec- 
ognition is therefore so nearly universal that there is no 
reason for restriction upon the rule. 

The reasons for neutral convoy are steadily growing 
less with the change in the methods of commercial inter- 
course. The French rules, issued during the Franco- 
Prussian war, indicate the general position of civilized 
states : 

14. Convois. — Vous ne visiter ez point les batiments qui se trouv- 
eront sous le convoi d'un navire de guerre neutre, et vous vous 
bornerez a reclamer du commandant du convoi une liste des bati- 
ments places sous sa direction, avec la declaration ecrite qu'ils 
n'appartiennent pas a l'ennemi et ne sont engages dans aucun com- 
merce illicite. Si cependant vous aviez lieu de soupconner que la 
religion du commandant du convoi a ete surprise, vous communi- 
queriez vos soupcons a cet officier, qui procederait seul a la visite 
des batiments suspectes. (Duboc, Droit de Visite, p. 128.) 

(b) What should be considered " proper assurance " ? 
"Proper assurance," according to Article 30, should 
cover : 

1. Establishment of identity of war vessels. 

2. Declaration by commander of the convoying vessel 
that the private vessels, giving names, with him are 
neutral vessels of his own state. 

3. Declaration by the commander that he has made a 
thorough examination of these vessels and that he con- 
siders them exempt from search. 

In some instances treaty provisions set forth what is 
"proper assurance:" "The verbal declaration of the 
commander of the convoy, on his word of honor, that 
the vessels under his protection belong to the nation 
whose flag he carries, and when bound to an enemy's 
port, that they have no contrabrand goods on board 
shall be sufficient." (Art. XIX, Treaty U. S. and Italy, 
Feb. 26, 1871.) 

It might be held by the "favored nation " clause that 
this would be in general "proper assurance. 



•>"> 



Article SI. 

The object of the visit or search of a vessel is: 
(1) To determine its nationality. 



79 

(2) To ascertain whether contrabrand of war is on 
board. 

(3) To ascertain whether a breach of blockade is 
intended or has been committed. 

(4) To ascertain whether the vessel is engaged in any 
capacity in the service of the enemy. 

The right of search mnst be exercised in strict con- 
formity with treaty provisions existing between the 
United States and other States and with proper consid- 
eration for the vessel boarded. 

(a) Is there a difference between visit and search? 

The words "visit" and "search" are nsnally conpled 
at the present time and it is cnstomary to regard visit 
and search as a single act. (See Duboc, Le Droit de 
Visite, Chap. II, Part I.) 

Lawrence says, "This is called indifferently the Right 
of Search or the Right of Visit and Search."" (Princi- 
ples of International Law, p. 392.) Some writers men- 
tion the act by one name and some writers mention it 
by the other, while other writers use both names. There 
was a distinction, however, in the earlier practice, and 
there were nnmerons controversies centering npon the 
distingnishing of the two terms in the first half of the 
nineteenth centnry. It was not till 1843 that Mr. 
Everett was able to write to Mr. Webster of Lord 
Aberdeen representing the English point of view, "he 
concurred with yon in the proposition that there is no 
such distinction as that between a right of search and 
a right of visit." 

(b) In line 8, after the words "service of the enemy," 
shonld the words "or gnilty of unneutral service" be 
inserted ? 

In view of the increasing range of unneutral service 
it would be advisable to have some provision in regard 
to such service at this point in the code. This could be 
inserted properly after the word "vessel" in the seventh 
line of Article 31. The clause would then read: "To 
ascertain whether the vessel is guilty of unneutral serv- 
ice or is engaged in any capacity in the service of the 
enemy." 



80 
Article 32. 

The following mode of procedure, subject to any 
special treaty stipulations, is to be followed by the 
boarding vessel, whose colors must be displayed at the 
time: 

The vessel is brought to by firing a gun with blank 
charge. If this is not sufficient to cause her to lie to, 
a shot is fired across the bows, and in case of flight or 
resistance force can be used to compel the vessel to 
surrender. 

The boarding vessel should then send one of its smaller 
boats alongside, with an officer in charge wearing side 
arms, to conduct the search. Arms may be carried in 
the boat, but not upon the persons of the men. When 
the officer goes on board of the vessel he may be accom- 
panied by not more than two men, unarmed, and he 
should at first examine the vessel's papers to ascertain her 
nationality, the nature of the cargo, and the ports of 
departure and destination. If the papers show contra- 
brand, an offense in respect of blockade, or enemy 
service, the vessel should be seized ; otherwise she should 
be released, unless suspicious circumstances justify a 
further search. If the vessel be released, an entry in the 
log book to that effect should be made by the boarding 
officer. 

(a) Should Article 32 be changed in any respect? 
Article 32 seems to be sufficiently full and explicit. 

Many countries allow more than two men to accompany 
the boarding officer. This is not an important provision, 
however. 

(b) Under this article can search be extended to a 
suspected person on board the ship visited? 

By Article 31 the object of visit and search is distinctly 
stated. The right of visit and search is thus confined 
to the vessel's papers and cargo. The clause "unless 
suspicious circumstances justify a further search" 
applies to the vessel only. 

Risley, "The Law of War," p. 267, says: "The lawful 
exercise of the right extends to ships and property, but 
not to persons on board ship." 

If there is suspicion of enemy service, as in the trans- 
portation of troops, the vessel may be seized and sent 
into port for adjudication,, 



81 
Article S3. 

Irrespective of the character of her cargo, or her pur- 
ported destination, a neutral vessel should be seized 
if she : 

(1) Attempts to avoid search by escape ; but this must 
be clearly evident. 

(2) Resists search with violence. 

(3) Presents fraudulent papers. 

(4) Is not supplied with the necessary papers to estab- 
lish the objects of search. 

(5) Destroys, defaces, or conceals papers. 

The papers generally expected' to be on board of a 
vessel are : 

(1) The register. 

(2) The crew and passenger list. 

(3) The log book. 

(4) A bill of health. 

(5) The manifest of cargo. 

(6) A charter party, if the vessel is chartered. 

(7) Invoices and bills of lading. 

(a) What would be the effect if a vessel were found 
to have double papers ? 

Double papers would involve a violation of (3) under 
Article 33, and the presence of fraudulent papers is suffi- 
cient to justify seizure. One set of papers must be 
fraudulent, as the vessel can not at the same time be 
fully documented from two states. An officer would 
be allowed, however, to exercise some discretion in such 
a case, as he would in the opposite case, when it is held 
that "The want of some of these papers (required under 
Article 33) is strong presumptive evidence against a 
ship's neutrality, yet the want of any one of them is not 
absolutely conclusive." 

(b) What would be the effect if a vessel were found 
to have an enemy pass? 

The possession of an enemy pass would usually imply 
that the use of the pass by the vessel would be of service 
to the enemy; consequently, unless there were good 
evidence and reason to the contrary the vessel should 
be seized. 

20681 6 



82 

Section VI. — Contraband of War. 

Article 3Jf. 

The term "contraband of war" includes only articles 
having a belligerent destination and purpose. Such 
articles are classed under two general heads : 

(1) Articles that are primarily and ordinarily used 
for military purposes in time of war, such as arms and 
munitions of war, military material, vessels of war, or 
instruments made for the immediate manufacture of 
munitions of war. 

(2) Articles that may be and are used for purposes of 
war or peace, according to circumstances. 

Articles of the first class, destined for ports of the 
enemy or places occupied by his forces, are always con- 
traband of war. 

Articles of the second class, when actually and espe- 
cially destined for the military or naval forces of the 
enemy, are contraband of war. 

In case of war, the articles that are conditionally and 
unconditionally contraband, when not specifically men- 
tioned in treaties previously made and in force, will be 
duly announced in a public manner. 

Article 35. 

Vessels, whether neutral or otherwise, carrying con- 
traband of war destined for the enemy, are liable to 
seizure and detention, unless treaty stipulations othei- 
wise provide. 

Article 36. 

Until otherwise announced, the following articles are 
to be treated as contraband of war : 

Absolutely contraband. — Ordnance; machine guns and 
their appliances and the parts thereof ; armor plate and 
whatever pertains to the offensive and defensive arma- 
ment of naval vessels; arms and instruments of iron, 
steel, brass, or copper, or of any other material, such 
arms and instruments being specially adapted for use in 
war by land or sea ; torpedoes and their appurtenances ; 
cases for mines, of whatever material ; engineering and 
transport materials, such as gun carriages, caissons, car- 
tridge boxes, campaigning forges, canteens, pontoons; 
ordnance stores; portable range finders; signal flags 
destined for naval use; ammunition and explosives of 
all kinds and their component parts ; machinery for the 
manufacture of arms and munitions of war; saltpeter; 



83 

military accouterments and equipments of all sorts; 
horses and mules. 

Conditionally contraband. — Coal, when destined for a 
naval station, a port of call, or a ship or ships of the 
enemy; materials for the construction of railways or 
telegraphs ; and money, when such materials or money 
are destined for the enemy's forces; provisions, when 
actually destined for the enemy's military or naval 
forces. 

(a) Should there be any change in Article 34? 
There seems to be no present need for change in 

Article 34? 

(b) Should there be any change in Article 35 ? 
Article 35 is in accord with general practice and there- 
fore seems to need no change. 

(c) Should "vessels adapted for warlike uses" be in- 
cluded_under Article 36 ? Should any changes be made 
in this article ? 

It is generally admitted that "vessels adapted for 
warlike uses," are included under Article 34 (1) as 
"military material" and there seems to be no necessity 
for inserting the words under 36, though there could be 
no particular harm in so doing. 

There is no need of immediate change in the article 
as in accord with the introductory clause change can 
be made by simple announcement at any time. 

(d) Under the clause in regard to "Conditionally con- 
traband " in Article 36, should there be a comma after 
"ships?" 

A comma should be inserted in order that "of the 
enemy "may more directly limit "naval station "and 
"port of call" also. 

Section VII. — Blockade. 

Article 37. 

Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective; 
that is, they must be maintained by a force sufficient to 
render hazardous the ingress to or egress from a port. 

If the blockading force be driven away by stress of 
weather and return without delay to its station, the con- 
tinuity of the blockade is not thereby broken. If the 
blockading force leave its station voluntarily, except 



84 

for purposes of the blockade, or is driven away by the 
enemy, the blockade is abandoned or broken. The 
abandonment or forced suspension of a blockade re- 
quires a new notification of blockade. 

Article 38. 

Neutral vessels of war must obtain permission to pass 
the blockade, either from the government of the State 
whose forces are blockading the port, or from the officer 
in general or local charge of the blockade. If neces- 
sary, these vessels should establish their identity to the 
satisfaction of the commander of the local blockading 
force. If military operations or other reasons should so 
require, permission to enter a blockaded port can be re- 
stricted or denied. 

Article 39. 

The notification of a blockade must be made before neu- 
tral vessels can be seized for its violation. This notifica- 
tion may be general, by proclamation, and communicated 
to the neutral States through diplomatic channels ; or it 
may be local, and announced to the authorities of the 
blockaded port and the neutral consular officials thereof. 
A special notification may be made to individual vessels, 
which is duly indorsed upon their papers as a warning. 
A notification to a neutral State is a sufficient notice to 
the citizens or subjects of such State. If it be estab- 
lished that a neutral vessel has knowledge or notifica- 
tion of the blockade from any source, she is subject to 
seizure upon a violation or attempted violation of the 
blockade. 

The notification of blockade should declare not only 
the limits of the blockade, but the exact time of its com- 
mencement and the duration of time allowed a vessel to 
discharge, reload cargo, and leave port. 

Article JfO. 

Vessels appearing before a blockaded port, having 
sailed before notification, are entitled to special notifica- 
tion by a blockading vessel. They should be boarded 
by an officer, who should enter upon the ship's log or 
upon its papers, over his official signature, the name of 
the notifying vessel, a notice of the fact and extent of the 
blockade, and of the date and place of the visit. After 
this notice, an attempt on the part of the vessel to vio- 
late the blockade makes her liable to capture. 



85 

Article Jfl. 

Should it appear, from the papers of a vessel or other- 
wise, that the vessel had sailed for the blockaded port 
after the fact of the blockade had been communicated 
to the country of her port of departure, or after it had 
been commonly known at that port, she is liable to cap- 
ture and detention as a prize. Due regard must be had 
in this matter to any treaties stipulating otherwise. 

Article J$. 

A neutral vessel may sail in good faith for a block- 
aded port, with an alternative destination to be decided 
upon by information as to the continuance of the block- 
ade obtained at an intermediate port. In such cas6, 
she is not allowed to continue her voyage to the block- 
aded port in alleged quest of information as to the 
status of the blockade, but must obtain it and decide 
upon her course before she arrives in suspicious vicinity ; 
and if the blockade has been formally established with 
due notification, sufficient doubt as to the good faith of 
the proceeding will subject her to capture. 

Article J^S. 

Neutral vessels found in port at the time of the estab- 
lishment of a blockade, unless otherwise specially 
ordered, will be allowed thirty days from the establish- 
ment of the blockade to load their cargoes and depart 
from such port. 

Article 44- 

The liability of a vessel, purposing to evade a block- 
ade, to capture and condemnation begins with her 
departure from the home port and lasts until her return, 
unless in the meantime the blockade of the port is 
raised. 

Article 45. 

The crews of neutral vessels violating or attempting 
to violate a blockade are not to be treated as prisoners 
of war, but any of the officers or crew whose testimony 
may be desired before the prize court should be detained 

as witnesses. 

Under Section VII, Blockade : 

(a) Should a clause to the effect that ' ' The United 
States regards blockade strictly as a measure of war and 
does not recognize the right of insurgents to establish a 
blockade," be inserted? 



86 

It would be wise to make Article 37 read, " Blockade 
is a measure of war between belligerents, and in order 
to be binding must be effective ; that is, it must be main- 
tained by a force sufficient to render hazardous the in- 
gress to or egress from a port." This would eliminate 
both insurgent and pacific blockade from the rules under 
Section VII. 

Some of these matters were quite fully discussed in 
the International Law Situations, 1902, Naval War Col- 
lege, Situations VI and VII, pages 57-97. Subsequently 
the United States in the case of the proposed "pacific 
blockade " of Venezuelan ports refused sanction to this 
form of constraint. 

(b) Should a clause to the effect that the United States 
does not not recognize the right of any state or states to 
establish a pacific blockade which shall affect third 
powers, be inserted ? 

In making blockade a measure of war in (a) above, it 
is probably unnecessary to insert any further provision, 
particularly as the attitude of the United States is now 
known. 

(c) Should Article 42 be stricken out? 

Article 42 practically agrees with the sixth section of 
the instructions to blockading vessels issued by the 
Navy Department during the war of the United States 
with Spain. 

This article is very liberal in its provisions. It has 
been maintained that such a vessel is not sailing for a 
blockaded port, but for a certain port, provided it is not 
blockaded when the vessel arrives at an intermediate 
port, otherwise for a specified unblockaded port. The 
vessel must, therefore, not sail direct to the blockaded 
port, but to the intermediate port for information. The 
court has ruled that ' 'A vessel which has full knowledge 
of the existence of a blockade before she enters upon 
her voyage has no right to claim a warning or indorse- 
ment when taken in the act of attempting to enter. It 
would be an absurd construction of the President's 
proclamation to require a notice to be given to those 
who already had knowledge. A notification is for those 



87 

only who have sailed without a knowledge of the block- 
ade and get the first information from the blockading 
vessel." (Manual of International Law, Naval War 
College, p. 152.) Nor has a vessel a right to expect 
leniency when it sails to a port publicly known to be 
blockaded, with the hope that the blockade may be raised 
before it arrives at the blockaded port. Such a vessel can 
not demand a warning from the blockading fleet, but is 
liable to capture, even though it may profess absence of 
intention to enter the port if found to be blockaded, but 
in such case to proceed to an alternative destination. 
In order to avoid liability under Article 44 of the Naval 
War Code, the vessel should sail directly for the inter- 
mediate port for the necessary information. (See Perels, 
Seerecht der Gegenwart, p. 273, sec. 51.) 

By the change in Article 15 (see above under Article 
15), Article 43 comes under consideration. It is stated 
in Snow's Manual of International Law issued in 1898, 
page 157, that "The time allowed for egress of a ship 
in a blockaded port is generally fifteen days after the 
establishment of the blockade." 

It is customary to allow neutral vessels some time for 
exit anjd in general this may be said to be the law, but 
a "thirty-day" period can not be assumed as general. 
Therefore, insert in place of "thirty" the words "a 
specified number," and the words "unless otherwise 
specially ordered " should be omitted. 

(cl) How would Articles 42 and 44 lead to confusion 
in practice ? 

Article 44 if placed before Article 42 would make mat- 
ters more clear. > The two classes of vessels mentioned 
in these articles are very distinct when it is possible to 
apprehend the motives of those who are responsible for 
their movements. 

Section VIII. — The Sending in of Prizes. 

Article Jf6. 

Prizes should be sent in for adjudication, unless other- 
wise directed, to the nearest suitable port, within the 
territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in which a 
prize court may take action. 



88 

Article 1+7. 

The prize should be delivered to the court as nearly 
as possible in the condition in which she was at the time 
of seizure, and to this end her papers should be carefully 
sealed at the time of seizure and kept in the custody of 
the prize master. 

Article 1+8. 

All witnesses whose testimony is necessary to the 
adjudication of the prize should be detained and sent in 
with her, and if circumstances permit it is preferable 
that the officer making the search should act as prize 
master. 

The laws of the United States in force concerning 
prizes and prize cases must be closely followed by officers 
and men of the United States Navy. 

Article 1+9. 

The title to property seized as prize changes only by 
the decision rendered by the prize court. But if the 
vessel or its cargo is needed for immediate public use, it 
may be converted to such use, a careful inventory and 
appraisal being made by impartial persons and certified 
to the prize court. 

Article 50. 

If there are controlling reasons why vessels that are 
properly captured may not be sent in for adjudication — 
such as unseaworthiness, the existence of infectious dis- 
ease, or the lack of a prize crew — they may be appraised 
and sold, and if this can not be done, they may be des- 
troyed. The imminent danger of recapture would jus- 
tify destruction if there should be no doubt that the 
vessel was a proper prize. But in all such cases all of the 
papers and other testimony should be sent to the prize 
court, in order that a decree may be duly entered. 

Section IX. — Armistice, Truce, and Capitula- 
tions, and Violations of Laws of War. 

Article 51. 

A truce or capitulation may be concluded, without 
special authority, by the commander of a naval force of 
the United States with the commander of the forces of 
the enemy, to be limited, however, to their respective 
commands. 

A general armistice requires an agreement between 
the respective belligerent governments. 



89 

Article 52. 

After agreeing upon or signing a capitulation the 
capitulator must neither injure nor destroy the vessels, 
property, or stores in his possession that he is to deliver 
up, unless the right to do so is expressly reserved to him 
in the agreement or capitulation. 

Article 53. 

The notice of the termination of hostilities, before 
being acted upon, must be officially received by a com- 
mander of a naval force. 

Except where otherwise provided, acts of war done 
after the receipt of the official notice of the conclusion 
of a treaty of peace or of an armistice are null and void. 

Article 5Jf. 

When not in conflict with the foregoing the regula- 
tions respecting the laws of war on land, in force with 
the armies of the United States, will govern the Navy 
of the United States when circumstances render them 
applicable. 

Article 55. 

The foregoing regulations are issued with the ap- 
proval of the President of the United States, for the 
government of all persons attached to the naval service, 
subject to all laws and treaties of the United States that 
are now in force or may hereafter be established. 

Sections VIII and IX accord with general practice 
id thei 
sections. 



and therefore no changes are recommended in these 



General Conclusions. 

The general conclusions as drawn from the discus- 
sions in the conferences in international law are briefly 
indicated in the following preliminary report of the 
work of the conferences. 

Capt. F. E. Chadwick, U. S. N., 

President Naval War College, Newport, R. I. 

Dear Sir: I present herewith a brief review of the results of the 
conferences in international law, held during the summer session of 
1903, of the Naval War College. 

There was used as the basis for these conferences the set of rules 
issued to the Navy in 1900 and having the title page, "A Naval War 



90 

Code, prepared by Captain Charles H. Stockton, United States Navy, 
president of the Naval War College, and prescribed for the use of 
the Navy. Washington: Government Printing Office. 1900." 

For these conferences the opinions and criticisms of those inter- 
ested in the code were, so far as obtainable, gathered and presented 
to the officers in attendance. These included opinions from officials 
and others in foreign states as well as from citizens of the United 
States, from acknowledged authorities in international law, and 
from those who in time of war would be affected or whose action 
would be determined by these rules. 

The aim of the conference was to consider the Naval War Code of 
1900 from all points of view, seriously and frankly, with reference 
to its adaptability to the purpose for which it was drawn and its 
probable effect in case of war to which the United States might be 
a party. 

From the extended discussions of the session of 1903 and from the 
consideration of the conclusions of writers and others who have ex- 
pressed opinions upon the code there come into prominence several 
points which seem to deserve particular and immediate notice: 

1. The Naval War Code is binding upon the Navy of the United 
States, though it is not binding upon any state with which the 
United States may be at war. 

2. The Naval War Code contains some provisions upon which 
there is not at present any international agreement, and upon 
which there are differences of opinion among the authorities upon 
international law. 

3. In case of war, the Navy of the United States might be placed 
in a position such that the enemy would be free to commit certain 
acts not forbidden by international law, but sanctioned by general 
practice, which acts the Navy of the United States could not do 
because forbidden by the code. 

4. Certain articles of the code should in any case be amended and 
rewritten. 

5. The Navy Department, by General Order 551, of June 27, 1900, 
published the code, under the approval of the President of the United 
States, " for the use of the Navy and for the information of all con- 
cerned." The code is therefore regarded as the official statement of 
the United States upon matters of maritime warfare. As such it 
has received careful and approving attention abroad. 

6. It is an almost unanimous opinion at home and abroad that 
there should be a code for maritime warfare. 

7. The Hague Convention of 1898 recommended that various 
matters relating to maritime warfare upon which the Code of the 
United States touches, as well as some not included, be referred to 
a subsequent conference. Among these matters were some particu- 
larly urged upon the Conference of 1898 by the delegates from the 
United States. 

8. The Naval War Code of 1900 was originally drawn with the 
hope that it possibly " should be presented to other countries as an 



91 

international pro jet." The code is particularly adapted to serve 
such a purpose. 

9. The United States would be following a course consistent with 
its past history and consistent with its attitude at the Hague Con- 
ference in urging an international agreement upon the rules of 
war at sea. 

As a result of all of these and other considerations it was the 
opinion unanimously given by those in attendance upon the summer 
session of 1903 of the Naval War College that it would be advisable: 

(1) That the proper steps be taken for the calling of an interna- 
tional conference for the consideration of the matters referred at the 
Hague Conference and for the formulation of international rules 
for war at sea. 

(2) That the Naval War Code of the United States be offered as 
a tentative formulation of the rules which should be considered. 

(3) That pending the calling of an international conference upon 
the laws and usages of war at sea, General Order 551 be withdrawn 
in order that the delegates from the United States might be 
unrestrained. 

(4) That if the Code be reprinted before the conference is called, 

it be issued not as an order, but, with revisions, as a statement of the 

rules which may be expected to prevail in case of war upon the sea. 

Respectfully yours, 

GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON. 

Summary of suggested changes. 

Changes in articles of the code are suggested as follows : 

Article 1. The general object of war is to procure 
the complete submission of the enemy at the earliest 
possible period, with the least expenditure of life and 
property. 

In maritime operations the usual measures for attain- 
ing this object are : to capture or destroy the military 
and naval forces of the enemy; his fortifications, 
arsenals, dry docks, and dockyards ; his various military 
and naval establishments, and his maritime commerce 
and communications; — to prevent his procuring war 
material from neutral sources; — to cooperate with the 
Army in military operations on land, and to protect and 
defend the national territory, property, and sea-borne 
commerce. 

Article 3. Military necessity permits measures that 
are indispensable for securing the ends of the war and 
that are in accordance with modern laws and usages of 
war. 



92 

It does not permit wanton devastation, or the doing of 
any hostile act that would make the return of peace un- 
necessarily difficult. 

Noncombatants are to he spared in person and prop- 
erty during hostilities, as much as the necessities of war 
and the conduct of such noncombatants will permit. 

By the Declaration of The Hague, signed July 29, 1899, 
to which the United States is a party, it is provided 
that: 

The contracting powers agree to prohibit, for a term of five years, 
the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by 
other new methods of similar nature. 

The present Declaration is only binding on the contracting powers 
in case of war between two or more of them. 

It shall cease to be binding from the time when in a war between 
the contracting powers one of the belligerents is joined by a non- 
contracting power. 

Article 4. The bombardment, by a naval force, of un- 
fortified and undefended towns, villages, or buildings is 
forbidden, though such towns, villages, or buildings are 
liable to the damages incidental to the destruction of 
military or naval establishments, public depots of muni- 
tions of war, or vessels of war in port, and such towns, 
villages, or buildings are liable to bombardment when 
reasonable requisitions for provisions and supplies at 
the time essential to the naval force are withheld, in 
which case due notice of bombardment shall be given. 

The bombardment of unfortified and undefended towns 
and places for the nonpayment of ransom is forbidden. 

Article 5. Unless under satisfactory censorship or 
otherwise exempt, the following rules are established 
with regard to the treatment of submarine telegraphic 
cables in time of war, irrespective of their ownership : 

(a) Submarine telegraphic cables between points in 
the territory of an enemy, or between the territory of the 
United States and that of an enemy, are subject to such 
treatment as the necessities of war may require. 

(b) Submarine telegraphic cables between the terri- 
tory of an enemy and neutral territory may be inter- 
rupted within the territorial jurisdiction of the enemy 
or at any point outside of neutral jurisdiction if the 
necessities of war require. 



93 

(c) Submarine telegraphic cables between two neutral 
territories shall be held inviolable and free from 
interruption. 

Article 7 following should be omitted from the code 
pending an international agreement upon the use of 
colors at sea. The reasons are given under the discus- 
sion above (p. 37). 

(Article 7. The use of false colors in war is forbidden, and when 
summoning a vessel to lie to, or before firing a gun in action, the 
national colors should be displayed by vessels of the United States.) 

Article 8. (See discussion, p. 42). 

Article 9. It was decided that Article 9 was unes- 
sential in the code and should be omitted. The discus- 
sion is summarized above (p. 44). The proposed revi- 
sion was as follows : 

(Article 9. With the armed forces duly constituted for land war- 
fare, the following are recognized as armed forces of the state: 

(1) The officers and men of the Navy, Naval Reserve, Naval Mi- 
litia, and their auxiliaries. 

(2) The officers and men of all other armed vessels cruising under 
lawful authority. ) 

Article 10. In case of capture the following become 
prisoners of war and are entitled to the humane treat- 
ment due to such prisoners : 

(1) The armed forces duly constituted for land Avar- 
fare. 

(2) The personnel of duly authorized armed vessels of 
the enemy, whether combatants or noncombatants. 

(3) The personnel of all public or private unarmed 
vessels engaged in the service of the enemy. 

(4) The personnel of private vessels of an enemy who, 
for defense or in protection of a vessel placed in their 
charge, resist attack. 

Article 11. The personnel of a private vessel of an 
enemy captured as a prize can be held, at the discretion of 
the captor, as witnesses, or as prisoners of war when by 
training or enrollment they are immediately available 
for the naval service of the enemy ; or they may be re- 
leased from detention or confinement. They are en t it led 
to their personal effects and to such individual propert v. 



94 

not contraband of war, as is not held as part of the ves- 
sel, its equipment, or as money, plate, or cargo contained 
therein. 

All passengers not in the service of the enemy, and 
all women and children on board such vessels should be 
released and landed at a convenient port, at the first op- 
portunity. 

If any person in the Navy strips off the clothes of, or 
pillages, or in any manner maltreats any person taken 
on board a prize, he shall suffer such punishment as a 
court-martial may adjudge. 

(This last clause is No. 17 of Articles for the Govern- 
ment of the Navy.) 

Article 12. The United States of America acknowl- 
edge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by their 
forces, private property, religion, and morality ; the per- 
sons of the inhabitants, especially those of women ; and the 
sacredness of domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary 
shall be rigorously punished. (See discussion, p. 50.) 

Article 14. All private vessels of the enemy, except 
coast fishing vessels innocently employed, are subject to 
capture, unless exempt by treaty stipulations. 

In case of military or other necessity, private vessels 
of an enemy may be destroyed, or they may be retained 
for the service of the Government. Whenever cap- 
tured vessels, arms, munitions of war, or other material 
are destroyed or taken for the use of the United States 
before coming into the custody of a prize court, they 
shall be surveyed, appraised, and inventoried by per- 
sons as competent and impartial as can be obtained ; and 
the survey, appraisement, and inventory shall be sent to 
the prize court where proceedings are to be held. 

Article 15. In absence of treaty governing the case, 
the treatment to be accorded private vessels of an enemy 
sailing prior to the beginning of a war, to or from a port 
of the United States, or sojourning in a port of the 
United States at the beginning of the war, will be de- 
termined by special instructions from the Navy Depart- 
ment. (See discussion, p. 57.) 

Article 19. A neutral vessel carrying the goods of 
the enemy is, with her cargo, exempt from capture, 



95 

except when carrying contraband of war, endeavoring 
to evade a blockade, or guilty of unneutral service. 

In place of Section IV the following articles of The 
Hague Convention, for the Adaptation to Maritime 
Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of 
August 22, 1864, should be inserted: 

Article I. Military hospital ships, that is to say, ships constructed 
or assigned by States specially and solely for the purpose of assist- 
ing the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked, and the names of which 
shall have been communicated to the belligerent powers at the 
beginning or during the course of hostilities, and in any case before 
they are employed, shall be respected, and can not be captured 
while hostilites last. v 

These ships, moreover, are not on the same footing as men-of-war 
as regards their stay in a neutral port. 

Article II. Hospital ships, equipped wholly or in part at the 
cost of private individuals or officially recognized relief societies, 
shall likewise be respected and exempt from capture, provided the 
belligerent Power to whom they belong has given them an official 
commission and have notified their names to the hostile Power at 
the commencement of or during hostilities, and in any case before 
they are employed. 

These ships should be furnished with a certificate from the com- 
petent authorities, declaring that they had been under their control 
while fitting out and on final departure. 

Article III. Hospital ships, equipped wholly or in part at the 
cost of private individuals or officially recognized societies of neu- 
tral countries, shall be respected and exempt from capture if the 
neutral Power to whom they belong has given them an official com- 
mission and notified their names to the belligerent powers at the 
commencement of or during hostilities, and in any case before they 
are employed. 

Article IV. The ships mentioned in Articles I, II, and III shall 
afford relief and assistance to the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked 
of the belligerents independently of their nationality. 

The Governments engage not to use these ships for any military 
purpose. 

These ships must not in any way hamper the movements of the 
combatants. 

During and after an engagement they will act at their own risk 
and peril. ' 

The belligerents will have the right to control and visit them: 
they can refuse their help, order them off, make them take a certain 
course, and put a commissioner on board; they can even detain 
them, if important circumstances require it. 

As far as possible the belligerents shall inscribe in the sailing 
papers of the hospital ships the orders they give them. 



96 

Article V. The military hospital ships shall be distinguished by 
being painted white outside, with a horizontal band of green about 
a meter and a half in breadth. 

The ships mentioned in Articles II and III shall be distinguished 
by being painted white outside, with a horizontal band of red about 
a meter and a half in breadth. 

The boats of the ships above mentioned, as also small craft which 
may be used for hospital work, shall be distinguished by similar 
painting. 

All hospital ships shall make themselves known by hoisting, 
together with their national flag, the white flag with a red cross, 
provided by the Geneva Convention. 

Article VI. Neutral merchantmen, yachts, or vessels having or 
taking on board sick, wounded, or shipwrecked of the belligerents 
can not be captured for so doing, but they are liable to capture for 
any violation of neutrality they may have committed. 

Article VII. The religious, medical, or hospital staff of any cap- 
tured ship is inviolable, and its members can not be made prisoners 
of war. On leaving the ship they take with them the objects and 
surgical instruments which are their own private property. 

This staff shall continue to discharge its duties while necessary, 
and can afterwards leave when the commander in chief considers it 
possible. 

The belligerents must guarantee to the staff that has fallen into 
their hands the enjoyment of their salaries intact. 

Article VIII. Sailors and soldiers who are taken on board when 
sick or wounded, to whatever nation they belong, shall be protected 
and looked after by the captors. 

Article IX. The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of one of the bel- 
ligerents who fall into the hands of the other, are prisoners of war. 
The captor must decide, according to circumstances, if it is best to 
keep them or send them to a port of his own country, to a neutral 
port, or even to a hostile port. In the last case prisoners thus repa- 
triated can not serve as long as the war lasts. 

Article X. (Excluded. ) 

Article XI. The rules contained in the above articles are binding 
only on the contracting powers in case of war between two or more 
of them. 

The said rules shall cease to be binding from the time when in a 
war between the contracting powers one of the belligerents is joined 
by a noncontr acting power. 

Article 31. The object of the visit and search of a 
vessel is : 

(1) To determine its nationality. 

(2) To ascertain whether contraband of war is on 
board. 



97 

(3) To ascertain whether a breach of blockade is in- 
tended or has been committed. 

(4) To ascertain whether the vessel is guilty of unneu- 
tral service or is engaged in any capacity in the service 
of the enemy. 

The right of search must be exercised in strict con- 
formity with treaty provisions existing between the 
United States and other states and with proper con- 
sideration for the vessel boarded. 

Article 37. Blockade is a measure of war between 
belligerents, and in order to be binding must be effective ; 
that is, it must be maintained by a force sufficient to 
render hazardous the ingress to or egress from a port. 

If the blockading force be driven away by stress of 
weather and return without delay to its station, the 
continuity of the blockade is not thereby broken. If 
the blockading force leave its station voluntarily, except 
for purposes of the blockade, or is driven away by the 
enemy, the blockade is abandoned or broken. The 
abandonment or forced suspension of a blockade requires 
a new notification of blockade. 

Article 43. Neutral vessels found in port at the 
time of the establishment of a blockade will be allowed 
a specified number of days from the establishment of 
the blockade, to load their cargoes and depart from 
such port. 

(Articles of the code will need to be renumbered in 
accordance with changes suggested above.) 

20681 7 



APPENDICES. 



(99) 



APPENDIX I. 



THE HOTTER STATES NAVAL WAR CODE OF 1900. 

General Orders j NAVY DEPARTMENT, 

No. 551. J Washington, June 27, 1900. 

The following code of naval warfare, prepared for the guidance 
and use of the naval service by Capt. Charles H. Stockton, United 
States Navy, under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, hav- 
ing been approved by the President of the United States, is published 
for the use of the Navy and for the information of all concerned. 

JOHN D. LONG, 

Secretary. 



General Order ) NAVY DEPARTMENT, 

No. 150. [ Washington, February 4, 1904. 

By direction of the President, General Order No. 551, dated June 
27, 1900, publishing a naval war code for the use of the Navy and 
for the information of all concerned, is hereby revoked. 

WILLIAM H. MOODY. 

Secretary. 

Note. — The above orders relate to the following code, entitled "The Laws and Usages oi 
War at Sea," which furnished the basis for the International Law Discussions of 1903. 

(101) 



THE LAWS AND USAGES OF WAR AT SEA. 



Section I. — Hostilities. Pago 5. 

Article 1. The general object of war is to procure the 
complete submission of the enemy at the earliest possible 
period with the least expenditure of life and property. 

The special objects of maritime war are: The capture or 
destruction of the military and naval forces of the enemy; 
of his fortifications, arsenals, dry docks and dockyards; of 
his various military and naval establishments, and of his 
maritime commerce; to prevent his procuring war material 
from neutral sources; to aid and assist military operations 
on land, and to protect and defend the national territory, 
property, and sea-borne commerce. 

Art. 2. The area of maritime warfare comprises the high 
seas or other waters that are under no jurisdiction, and 
the territorial waters of belligerents. Neither hostilities 
nor any belligerent right, such as that of visitation and 
search, shall be exercised in the territorial waters of neu- 
tral states. 

The territorial waters of a state extend seaward to the 
distance of a marine league from the low- water mark of Page 6. 
its coast line. They also include, to a reasonable extent, 
which is in many cases determined by usage, adjacent 
parts of the sea, such as bays, gulfs, and estuaries inclosed 
within headlands ; and where the territory by which they are 
inclosed belongs to two or more states, the marine limits 
of such states are usually defined by conventional lines. 

Art. 3. Military necessity permits measures that are 
indispensable for securing the ends of the war and that 
are in accordance with modern laws and usages of war. 

It does not permit wanton devastation, the use of poison, 
or the doing of any hostile act that would make the return 
of peace unnecessarily difficult. 

Noncombatants are to be spared in person and property 
during hostilities as much as the necessities of war and the 
conduct of noncombatants will permit. 

The launching of projectiles and explosives from bal- 
loons, or by other new methods of a similar nature, is pro- 
hibited for a term of five years by the Declaration of The 

(103) 



104 

Hague, to which the United States became a party. This 
rule does not apply when at war with a noncontracting 
power. 

Art. 4. *The bombardment, by a naval force, of unforti- 
Page 7. fled and undefended towns, villages, or buildings is forbid- 
den, except when such bombardment is incidental to the 
destruction of military or naval establishments, public 
depots of munitions of war, or vessels of war in port, or 
unless reasonable requisitions for provisions and supplies 
essential, at the time, to such naval vessel or vessels are 
forcibly withheld, in which case due notice of bombard- 
ment shall be given. 

The bombardment of unfortified and undefended towns 
and places for the nonpayment of ransom is forbidden. 

Art. 5. The following rules are to be followed with 
regard to submarine telegraphic cables in time of war, 
irrespective of their ownership: 

(a) Submarine telegraphic cables between points in the 
territory of an enemy, or between the territory of the 
United States and that of an enemy, are subject to such 
treatment as the necessities of war may require. 

(5) Submarine telegraphic cables between the territory 
of an enemy and neutral territory may be interrupted 
within the territorial jurisdiction of the enemy. 

(c) Submarine telegraphic cables between two neutral 
territories shall be held inviolable and free from interrup- 
tion. 

Art. 6. If military necessity should require it, neutral 
vessels found within the limits of belligerent authority 
Page 8. may be seized and destroyed or otherwise utilized for mili- 
tary purposes, but in such cases the owners of neutral 
vessels must be fully recompensed. The amount of the 
indemnity should, if practicable, be agreed on in advance 
with the owner or master of the vessel. Due regard must 
be had to treaty stipulations upon these matters. 

Art. 7. The use of false colors in war is forbidden, and 
when summoning a vessel to lie to, or before firing a gun 
in action, the national colors should be displayed by vessels 
of the United States. 

Art. 8. In the event of an enemy failing to observe the 
laws and usages of war, if the offender is beyond reach, 
resort may be had to reprisals, if such action should be 
considered a necessity; but due regard must always be 
had to the duties of humanity. Reprisals should not 
exceed in severity the offense committed, and must not be 
resorted to when the injury complained of has been 
repaired. 



105 

If the offender is within the power of the United States 
he can be punished, after due trial, by a properly consti- 
tuted military or naval tribunal. Such offenders are liable 
to the punishments specified by the criminal law. 

Section II. — Belligerents. 

Art. 9. In addition to the armed forces duly constituted Pw 9. 
for land warfare, the following are recognized as armed 
forces of the state: 

(1) The officers and men of the Navy, Naval Reserve, 
Naval Militia, and their auxiliaries. 

(2) The officers and men of all other armed vessels cruis- 
ing under lawful authority. 

Art. 10. In case of capture, the personnel of the armed 
forces or armed vessels of the enemy, whether combatants 
or noncombatants, are entitled to receive the humane 
treatment due to prisoners of war. 

The personnel of all public unarmed vessels of the enemy, 
either owned or in his service as auxiliaries, are liable, 
upon capture, to detention as prisoners of war. 

The personnel of merchant vessels of an enemy who, in 
self-defense and in protection of the vessel placed in their 
charge, resist an attack, are entitled, if captured, to the 
status of prisoners of war. 

Art. 11. The personnel of a merchant vessel of an enemy 
captured as a prize can be held, at the discretion of the 
captor, as witnesses, or as prisoners of war when by train- 
ing or enrollment they are immediately available for the 
naval service of the enemy, or they may be released from 
detention or confinement. They are entitled to their per- Page io 
sonal effects and to such individual property, not contra- 
band of war, as is not held as part of the vessel, its 
equipment, or as money, plate, or cargo contained therein. 

All passengers not in the service of the enemy, and all 
women and children on board such vessels should be re- 
leased and landed at a convenient port at the first oppor- 
nity. 

Any person in the naval service of the United State who 
pillages or maltreats, in any manner, any person found on 
board a merchant vessel captured as a prize, shall be 
severely punished. 

Art. 12. The United States of America acknowledge and 
protect, in hostile countries occupied by their forces, reli- 
gion and morality; the persons of the inhabitants, especially 
those of women, and the sacredness of domestic relations. 
Offenses to the contrary shall be rigorously punished. 



106 

Section III. — Belligerent and Neutral Vessels. 

Art. 13. All public vessels of the enemy are subject to 
capture, except those engaged in purely charitable or sci- 
entific pursuits, in voyages of discovery, or as hospital 
ships under the regulations hereinafter mentioned. 
Page 11. Cartel and other vessels of the enemy, furnished with a 

proper safe-conduct, are exempt from capture, unless 
engaged in trade or belligerent operations. 

Art. 14. All merchant vessels of the enemy, except 
coast fishing vessels innocently employed, are subject to 
capture, unless exempt by treaty stipulations. 

In case of military or other necessity, merchant vessels 
of an enemy may be destroyed, or they may be retained 
for the service of the Government. Whenever captured 
vessels, arms, munitions of war, or other material are 
destroyed or taken for the use of the United States before 
coming into the custody of a prize court, they shall be sur- 
veyed, appraised, and inventoried by persons as competent 
and impartial as can be obtained; and the survey, appraise- 
ment, and inventory shall be sent to the prize court where 
proceedings are to be held. 

Art. 15. Merchant vessels of the enemy that have sailed 
from a port within the jurisdiction of the United States, 
prior to the declaration of war, shall be allowed to proceed 
to their destination, unless they are engaged in carrying 
contraband of war or are in the military service of the 
enemy. 

Merchant vessels of the enemy, in ports within the juris- 
diction of the United States at the outbreak of war, shall 
Page 12. be allowed thirty days after war has begun to load their 
cargoes and depart, and shall thereafter be permitted to 
proceed to their destination, unless they are engaged in 
carrying contraband of war or are in the military service 
of the enemy. 

Merchant vessels of the enemy, which shall have sailed 
from any foreign port for any port within the jurisdiction 
of the United States before the declaration of war. shall 
be permitted to enter and discharge their cargo and there- 
after to proceed to any port not blockaded. 

Art. 16. Neutral vessels in the military or naval service 
of the enemy, or under the control of the enemy for military 
or naval purposes, are subject to capture or destruction. 

Art. 17. Vessels of war of the United States may take 
shelter during war in a neutral port, subject to the limita- 
tions that the authorities of the port may prescribe as to 
the number of belligerent vessels to be admitted into the 
port at any one time. This shelter, which is allowed by 



107 

comity of nations, may be availed of for the purpose of 
evading an enemy, from stress of weather, or to obtain 
supplies or repairs that the vessel needs to enable her to 
continue her voyage in safety and to reach the nearest port 
of her own country. 

Art. 18. Such vessel or vessels must conform to the 
regulations prescribed by the authorities of the neutral Page 13. 
port with respect to the place of anchorage, the limitation 
of the stay of the vessel in port, and the time to elapse 
before sailing in pursuit or after the departure of a vessel 
of the enemy. 

No increase in the armament, military stores, or in the 
number of the crew of a vessel of war of the United States 
shall be attempted during the stay of such vessel in a neu- 
tral port. 

Art. 19. A neutral vessel carrying the goods of an enemy 
is, with her cargo, exempt from capture, except when carry- 
ing contraband of war or endeavoring to evade a blockade. 

Art. 20. A neutral vessel carrying hostile dispatches, 
when sailing as a dispatch vessel practically in the serv- 
ice of the enemy, is liable to seizure. Mail steamers 
under neutral flags carrying such dispatches in the regu- 
lar and customary manner, either as a part of their mail 
in their mail bags, or separately as a matter of accommo- 
dation and without special arrangement or remunera- 
tion, are not liable to seizure and should not be detained, 
except upon clear grounds of suspicion of a violation of the 
laws of war with respect to contraband, blockade, or un- 
neutral service, in which case the mail bags must be for- 
warded with seals unbroken. 

Section IV. — Hospital Ships— The Shipwrecked, Sick Page 14. 
and Wounded. 

Art. 21. Military hospital ships— that is to say, vessels 
constructed or fitted out by the belligerent states for the 
special and sole purpose of assisting the wounded, sick, or 
shipwrecked, and whose names have been communicated 
to the respective powers at the opening or in the course of 
hostilities, and in any case before they are so employed, 
shall be respected, and are not liable to capture during the 
period of hostilities. 

Such ships shall not be classed with warships, with 
respect to the matter of sojourn in a neutral port. 

Art. 22. Hospital ships fitted out, in whole or in part, 
at the expense of private individuals, or of officially recog- 
nized relief societies, shall likewise be respected and ex- 
empt from capture, provided the belligerent Power to 
whom they are subject has given them an official commis- 
sion and has notified the hostile Power of the names of 



108 

such ships at the beginning or in the course- of hostilities, 
and in any case before they are employed. 

These ships should be furnished with a certificate, issued 
by the proper authorities, setting forth -that they were 
under the control of such authorities during their equip- 
ment and at the time of their final departure. 
Page 15. Art. 23. The vessels mentioned in Articles 21 and 22 

shall afford relief and assistance to the wounded, sick, 
and shipwrecked of the belligerents without distinction of 
nationality. 

It is strictly forbidden to use these vessels for any mili- 
tary purpose. 

These vessels must not in any way hamper the move- 
ments of the combatants. 

During and immediately after engagements they act at 
their own risk and peril. 

The belligerents have the right to control and visit such 
vessels; they may decline their cooperation, require them 
to withdraw, prescribe for them a fixed course, and place 
a commissioner on board; they may even detain them, if 
required by military necessity. 

When practicable, the belligerents shall enter upon the 
log of hospital ships such orders as they may give them. 

Art. 24. Military hospital ships shall be distinguished 
by being painted white outside, with a horizontal band of 
green about 1% meters wide. 

The ships designated in Article 22 shall be distinguished 
by being painted white outside, with a horizontal band of 
red about \% meters wide. 

The boats of hospital ships, as well as small craft that 
may be devoted to hospital service, shall be distinguished 
by being painted in the same colors. 
Page 16. Hospital ships shall, in general, make themselves known 

by hoisting, with their national flag, the white flag with a 
red cross prescribed by the Geneva Convention. 

Art. 25. Merchant vessels, yachts, or neutral vessels that 
happen to be in the vicinity of active maritime hostilities, 
may gather up the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked of the 
belligerents. Such vessels, after this service has been per- 
formed, shall report to the belligerent commander con- 
trolling the waters thereabouts, for future directions, and 
while accompanying a belligerent will be, in all cases, 
under his orders; and if a neutral, be designated by the 
national flag of that belligerent carried at the foremast- 
head, with the red-cross flag flying immediately under it. 

These vessels are subject to capture for any violation of 
neutrality that they may commit. Any attempt to carry 
off such wounded, sick, and shipwrecked, without permis- 
sion, is a violation of neutrality. They are also subject, in 
general, to the provisions of Article 23. 



109 

Art. 26. The religious, medical, and hospital personnel 
of any vessel captured during hostilities shall be inviolable 
and not subject to be made prisoners of war. They shall 
be permitted, upon leaving the ship, to carry with them 
those articles and instruments of surgery which are their 
private property. 

Such personnel shall continue to exercise their functions Page it. 
as long as may be necessary, whereupon they may with- 
draw when the commander in chief deems it possible to 
do so. 

The belligerents shall insure to such personnel, when 
falling into their hands, the free exercise of their func- 
tions, the receipt of salaries, and entire freedom of move- 
ment, unless a military necessity prevents. 

Art. 27. Sailors and soldiers, embarked when sick or 
wounded, shall be protected and cared for by the captors, 
no matter to what nation they may belong. 

Art. 28. The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of the enemy, 
who are captured, are considered prisoners of war. The 
captor must decide, according to circumstances, whether 
it is expedient to keep them or send them to a port of his 
own country, to a neutral port, or even to a port of the 
enemy. In the last case, the prisoners thus returned to 
their country can not serve again during the period of the 
war. 

Art. 29. The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick, who are 
landed at a neutral port with the consent of the local author- 
ities, shall, unless there exists an agreement to the contrary 
between the neutral state and the belligerent states, agree 
that they will not again take part in the operations of war. 

The expenses of hospital care and of internment shall be Page 18. 
borne by the state to which such shipwrecked, wounded, 
or sick belong. 

Section V. — The Exercise of the Right of Search. 

Art. 30. The exercise of the right of search during war 
shall be confined to properly commissioned and authorized 
vessels of war. Convoys of neutral merchant vessels, under 
escort of vessels of war of their own state, are exempt 
from the right of search, upon proper assurances, based 
on thorough examination, from the commander of the 
convoy. 

Art. 31. The object of the visit or search of a vessel is: 

(1) To determine its nationality. 

(2) To ascertain whether contrabrand of war is on board. 

(3) To ascertain whether a breach of blockade is intended 
or has been committed. 



110 

(4) To ascertain whether the vessel is engaged in any- 
capacity in the service of the enemy. 

The right of search must be exercised in strict conformity 
with treaty provisions existing between the United States 
and other states, and with proper consideration for the 
vessel boarded. 
Page 19. Art. 32. The following mode of procedure, subject to 

any special treaty stipulations, is to be followed by the 
boarding vessel, whose colors must be displayed at the 
time: 

The vessel is brought to by firing a gun with blank 
charge. If this is not sufficient to cause her to lie to, a 
shot is fired across the bows, and in case of flight or resist- 
ance force can be used to compel the vessel to surrender. 

The boarding vessel should then send one of its smaller 
boats alongside, with an officer in charge, wearing side 
arms, to conduct the search. Arms may be carried in the 
boat, but not upon the persons of the men. When the 
officer goes on board of the vessel he may be accompanied 
by not more than two men, unarmed, and he should at 
first examine the vessel's papers to ascertain her national- 
ity, the nature of the cargo, and the ports of departure and 
destination. If the papers show contraband, an offense in 
respect of blockade, or enemy service, the vessels should be 
seized; otherwise she should be released, unless suspicious 
circumstances justify a further search. If the vessel be 
released, an entry in the log book to that effect should be 
made by the boarding officer. 

Art. 33. Irrespective of the character of her cargo, or 
her purported destination, a neutral vessel should be seized 
if she — 

(1) Attempts to avoid search by escape; but this must 
be clearly evident. 

(2) Resists search with violence. 
Page 20. (3) Presents fraudulent papers. 

(4) Is not supplied with the necessary papers to estab- 
lish the objects of search. 

(5) Destroys, defaces, or conceals papers. 

The papers generally expected to be on board of a vessel 
are: 

(1) The register. 

(2) The crew and passenger list. 

(3) The log book. 

(4) A bill of health. 

(5) The manifest of cargo. 

(6) A charter party, if the vessel is chartered. 

(7) Invoices and bills of lading. 



Ill 

Section VI. — Contraband of War. 

Art. 34. The term " contraband of war" includes only- 
articles having a belligerent destination and purpose. 
Such articles are classed under two general heads: 

(1) Articles that are primarily and ordinarily used for 
military purposes in time of war, such as arms and muni- 
tions of war, military material, vessels of war, or instru- 
ments made for the immediate manufacture of munitions 
of war. 

(2) Articles that may be and are used for purposes of 
war or peace, according to circumstances. 

Articles of the first class, destined for ports of the enemy 
or places occupied by his forces, are always contraband of 
war. 

Articles of the second class, when actually and especially Page 21. 
destined for the military or naval forces of the enemy, are 
contraband of war. 

In case of war, the articles that are conditionally and 
unconditionally contraband, when not specifically men- 
tioned in treaties previously made and in force, will be 
duly announced in a public manner. 

Art. 35. Vessels, whether neutral or otherwise, carrying 
contraband of war destined for the enemy, are liable to 
seizure and detention, unless treaty stipulations otherwise 
provide. 

Art. 36. Until otherwise announced, the following arti- 
cles are to be treated as contraband of war: 

Absolutely contraband. — Ordnance; machine guns and 
their appliances and the parts thereof; armor plate and 
whatever pertains to the offensive and defensive armament 
of naval vessels: arms and instruments of iron, steel, brass, 
or copper, or of any other material, such arms and instru- 
ments being specially*adapted for use in war by land or 
sea; torpedoes and their appurtenances; cases for mines, of 
whatever material; engineering and transport materials, 
such as gun carriages, caissons, cartridge boxes, campaign- 
ing forges, canteens, pontoons; ordnance stores; portable 
range finders; signal flags destined for naval use; ammuni- 
tion and explosives of all kinds and their component parts; 
machinery for the manufacture of arms and munitions of 
war; saltpeter; military accouterments and equipments 
of all sorts; horses and mules. 

Conditionally contraband. — Coal, when destined for a Page 22. 
naval station, a port of call, or a ship or ships of the enemy; 
materials for the construction of railways or telegraphs. 
and money, when such materials or money are destined for 
the enemy's forces; provisions, when actually destined for 
the enemy's military or naval forces. 



112 

Section VII.— Blockade. 

Art. 37. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be ef- 
fective; that is, they must be maintained by a force suffi- 
cient to render hazardous the ingress to or egress from a 
port. 

If the blockading force be driven away by stress of 
weather, and return without delay to its station, the con- 
tinuity of the blockade is not thereby broken. If the block- 
ading force leave its station voluntarily, except for pur- 
poses of the blockade, or is driven away by the enemy, the 
blockade is abandoned or broken. The abandonment or 
forced suspension of a blockade requires a new notification 
of blockade. 

Art. 38. Neutral vessels of war must obtain permission 
to pass the blockade, either from the government of the 
state whose forces are blockading the port or from the 
officer in general or local charge of the blockade. If neces- 
sary, these vessels should establish their identity to the 
satisfaction of the commander of the local blockading 
rage 23. force. If military operations or other reasons should so 
require, permission to enter a blockaded port can be re- 
stricted or denied. 

Art. 39. The notification of a blockade must be made 
before neutral vessels can be seized for its violation. This 
notification may be general, by proclamation, and commu- 
nicated to the neutral states through diplomatic channels; 
or it may be local and announced to the authorities of the 
blockaded port and the neutral consular officials thereof. 
A special notification may be made to individual vessels, 
which is duly indorsed upon their papers as a warning. A 
notification to a neutral state is a sufficient notice to the 
the citizens or subjects of such state. If it be established 
that a neutral vessel has knowledge or notification of the 
blockade from any source, she is subject to seizure upon a 
violation or attempted violation of the blockade. 

The notification of blockade should declare, not only the 
limits of the blockade, but the exact time of its commence- 
ment and the duration of time allowed a vessel to dis- 
charge, reload cargo, and leave port. 

Art. 40. Vessels appearing before a blockaded port, 
having sailed before notification, are entitled to special 
notification by a blockading vessel. They should be 
boarded by an officer, who should enter upon the ship's 
Page 24. log or upon its papers, over his official signature, the name 
of the notifying vessel, a notice of the fact and extent of 
the blockade, and of the date and place of the visit. After 
this notice an attempt on the part of the vessel to violate 
the blockade makes her liable to capture. 



113 

Art. 41. Should it appear from the papers of a vessel, or 
otherwise, that the vessel had sailed for the blockaded 
port after the fact of the blockade had been communicated 
to the country of her port of departure, or after it had been 
commonly known at that port, she is liable to capture and 
detention as a prize. Due regard must be had in this 
matter to any treaties stipulating otherwise. 

Art. 42. A neutral vessel may sail in good faith for a 
blockaded port, with an alternative destination to be de- 
cided upon by information as to the continuance of the 
blockade obtained at an intermediate port. In such case 
she is not allowed to continue her voyage to the blockaded 
port in alleged quest of information as to the status of the 
blockade, but must obtain it and decide upon her course 
before she arrives in suspicious vioinity; and if the block- 
ade has been formally established with due notification, 
sufficient doubt as to the good faith of the proceeding will 
subject her to capture. 

Art. 43. Neutral vessels found in port at the time of the 
establishment of a blockade, unless otherwise specially 
ordered, will be allowed thirty days from the establishment 
of the blockade, to load their cargoes and depart from such 
port. 

Art. 44. The liability of a vessel purposing to evade a Page 25. 
blockade, to capture and condemnation, begins with her 
departure from the home port and lasts until her return, 
unless in the meantime the blockade of the port is raised. 

Art. 45. The crews of neutral vessels violating or at- 
tempting to violate a blockade are not to be treated as 
prisoners of war, but any of the officers or crew whose tes- 
timony may be desired before the prize court should be 
detained as witnesses. 

Section VIIL— The Sending. in of Prizes. 

Art. 46. Prizes should be sent in for adjudication, unless 
otherwise directed, to the nearest suitable port, within the 
territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in which a 
prize court may take action. 

Art. 47. The prize should be delivered to the court as 
nearly as possible in the condition in which she was at the, 
time of seizure, and to this end her papers should be care- 
fully sealed at the time of seizure and kept in the custody 
of the prize master. 

Art. 48. All witnesses whose testimony is necessary to 
the adjudication of the prize should be detained and sent 
in with her, and if circumstances permit, it is preferabV 
that the officer making the search should act as prize 
master. 

20681 8 



114 

The laws of the United States in force concerning prizes 
and prize cases mnst be closely followed by officers and 
men of the United States Navy. 
Page 26. Art. 49. The title to property seized as prize changes 
only by the decision rendered by the prize court. But if 
the vessel or its cargo is needed for immediate public use, 
it may be converted to such use, a careful inventory and 
appraisal being made by impartial persons and certified to 
the prize court. 

Art. 50. If there are controlling reasons why vessels 
that are properly captured may not be sent in for adjudi- 
cation — such as unseaworthiness, the existence of infec- 
tious disease, or the lack of a prize crew — they may be 
appraised and sold, and if this can not be done, they may 
be destroyed. The imminent danger of recapture would 
justify destruction, if there should be no doubt that the 
vessel was a proper prize. But in all such cases all of the 
papers and other testimony should be sent to the prize 
court, in order that a decree may be duly entered. 

Section IX. — Armistice, Truce, and Capitulations, and 
Violations of Laws of War. 

Art. 51. A truce or capitulation may be concluded, with- 
out special authority, by the commander of a naval force 
of the United States with the commander of the forces of 
the enemy, to be limited, however, to their respective 
commands. 
Page 27. A general armistice requires an agreement between the 

respective belligerent governments. 

Art. 52. After agreeing upo :. or signing a capitulation 
the capitulator must neither injure nor destroy the vessels, 
property, or stores in his possession that he is to deliver up, 
unless the right to do so is expressly reserved to him in the 
agreement or capitulation. 

Art. 53. The notice of the termination of hostilities, be- 
fore being acted upon, must be officially received by a 
commander of a naval force. 

Except where otherwise provided, acts of war done after 
the receipt of the official notice of the conclusion of a treaty 
of peace or of an armistice are null and void. 

Art. 54. When not in conflict with the foregoing the 
regulations respecting the laws of war on land, in force 
with the armies of the United States, will govern the Navy 
of the United States when circumstances render them 
applicable. 

Art. 55. The foregoing regulations are issued with the 
approval of the President of the United States, for the 
government of all persons attached to the naval service, 
subject to all laws and treaties of the United States that 
are now in force or may hereafter be established. 



APPENDIX II. 



INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE 
UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD. 



General Orders, ) WAR DEPARTMENT, 

> Adjutant General's Office, 

No. 100. ) Washington, April 24, 1863. 

The following "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the 
United States in the Field," prepared by Francis Lieber, LL. D., 
and revised by a Board of Officers, of which Major General E. A. 
Hitchcock is president, having been approved by the President of 
the United States, he commands that they be published for the 
information of all concerned. < 

By order of the Secretary of War: 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 
Assistant Adjutant General. 



SECTION I. 
Martial law — Military jurisdiction— Military necessity — Retaliation. 

1. 

A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in con- 
sequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading 
or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial 
Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or 
not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and conse- 
quence of occupation or conquest. 

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law. 

2. 

Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except 
by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by 
special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the 
occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion 
of peace as one of the conditions of the same. 

(115) 



116 

3. 

Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the 
occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of 
the domestic administration and government in the occupied place 
or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for 
the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military 
necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation. 

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administra- 
tion of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, 
as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military 

authority. 

4. 

Martial Law is simply military authority exercised in accordance 
with the laws and usages of war. Military oppression is not Martial 
Law; it is the abuse of the power which that law confers. As 
Martial Law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon 
those who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of 
justice, honor, and humanity — virtues adorning a soldier even more 
than other men, for the very reason that he possesses the 'power of 
his arms against the unarmed. 

5. 

Martial Law should be less stringent in places and countries fully 
occupied and fairly conquered. Much greater severity may be 
exercised in places or regions where actual hostilities exist, or are 
expected and must be prepared for. Its most complete sway is 
allowed — even in the commander's own country — when face to 
face with the enemy, because of the absolute necessities of the case, 
and of the paramount duty to defend the country against invasion. 

To save the country is paramount to all other considerations. 

6. 

All civil and penal law shall continue to take its usual course in the 
enemy's places and territories under Martial Law, unless interrupted 
or stopped by order of the occupying military power; but all the 
functions of the hostile government — legislative, executive, or 
administrative — whether of a general, provincial, or local character, 
cease under Martial Law, or continue only with the sanction, or, if 
deemed necessary, the participation of the occupier or invader. 

7. 

Martial Law extends to property, and to persons, whether they 
are subjects of the enemy or aliens to that government. 

8. 

Consuls, among American and European nations, are not diplo- 
matic agents. Nevertheless, their offices and persons will be 
subjected to Martial Law in cases of urgent necessity only: their 



117 

property and business are not exempted. Any delinquency they 
commit against the established military rule may be punished as 
in the case of any other inhabitant, and such punishment furnishes 
no reasonable ground for international complaint. 

9. 

The functions of Ambassadors, Ministers, or other diplomatic 
agents, accredited by neutral powers to the hostile government, 
cease, so far as regards the displaced government; but the con- 
quering or occupying power usually recognizes them as temporarily 
accredited to itself. 

10. 

Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public 
revenue and taxes, whether imposed by the expelled government or 
by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of 
the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations. 

11. 

The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith 
concerning engagements concluded with the enemy during the war. 
but also the breaking of stipulations solemnly contracted by the 
belligerents in time of peace, and avowedly intended to remain in 
force in case of war between the contracting powers. 

It disclaims all extortions and other transactions for individual 
gain; all acts of private revenge, or connivance at such acts. 

Offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially 
so if committed by officers. 

12. 

Whenever feasible, Martial Law is carried out in cases of indi- 
vidual offenders by Military Courts; but sentences of death shall 
be executed only with the approval of the chief executive, provided 
the urgency of the case does not require a speedier execution, and 
then only with the approval of the chief commander. 

13. 

Military jurisdiction is of two kinds: First, that which is conferred 
and defined by statute; second, that which is derived from the com- 
mon law of war. Military offenses under the statute law must be 
tried in the manner therein directed; but military offenses which 
do not come within the statute must be tried and punished under 
the common law of war. The character of the courts which exercise 
these jurisdictions depends upon the local laws of each particular 
country. 

In the armies of the United States the first is exercised by courts- 
martial, while cases which do not come within the " Rules and 
Articles of War," or the jurisdiction conferred by statute on courts- 
martial, are tried by military commissions. 



118 

14. 

Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, 
consists in the necessity of those measures which* are indispensable 
for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to 
the modern law and usages of war. 

15. 

Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb 
of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is inci- 
dentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of 
the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance 
to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it 
allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways 
and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all with- 
holding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the 
appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for 
the subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as 
does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, 
regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by 
the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one 
another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral 
beings, responsible to one another and to God. 

16. 

Military necessity does not admit of cruelty — that is, the infliction 
of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming 
or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. 
It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton 
devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts 
of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any 
act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily 
difficult. • 

17. 

War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the 
hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier 
subjection of the enemy. 

18. 

When a commander of a besieged place expels the noncombatants, 
in order to lessen the number of those who consume his stock of 
provisions, it is lawful, though an extreme measure, to drive them 
back, so as to hasten on the surrender. 

19. 

Commanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their 
intention to bombard a place, so that the noncombatants, and 
especially the women and children, may be removed before the 
bombardment commences. But it is no infraction of the common 



119 

law of war to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a 
necessity. 

20. 

Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations 
or governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence 
that men live in political, continuous societies, forming organized 
units, called states or nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy, and 
suffer, advance, and retrograde together, in peace and in war. 

21. 

The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one 
of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is 
subjected to the hardships of the war. 

22. 

Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last cen- 
turies, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, 
the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile 
country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The 
principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed 
citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as 
the exigencies of war will admit. 

23. 

Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off 
to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed 
in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can 
afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war. 

24. 

The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to 
be with barbarous armies, that the private individual of the hostile 
country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protec- 
tion, and every disruption of family ties. Protection was, and still 
is with uncivilized people, the exception. 

25. 

In modern regular wars of the Europeans, and their descendants 
in other portions of the globe, protection of the inoffensive citizen 
of the hostile country is the rule; privation and disturbance of pri- 
vate relations are the exceptions. 

26. 

Commanding generals may cause the magistrates and civil officers 
of the hostile country to take the oath of temporary allegiance or 
an oath of fidelity to their own victorious government or rulers, and 
they may expel every one who declines to do so. But whether they 
do so or not, the people and their civil officers owe strict obedience 



L20 ' 

to them as long as they hold sway over the district or country, at 
the peril of their lives. 

27. 

The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than 
can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations 
acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless 
enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing him- 
self against the repetition of barbarous outrage. 

28. 

Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of 
mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and 
moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation 
shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence 
and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution. 

Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation removes the belligerents farther 
and farther from the mitigating rules of regular war, and by rapid 
steps leads them nearer to the internecine wars of savages. 

29. 

Modern times are distinguished from earlier ages by the exist- 
ence, at one and the same time, of many nations and great govern- 
ments related to one another in close intercourse. 

Peace is their normal condition; war is the exception. The ultimate 
object of all modern war is a renewed state of peace. 

The more vigorously wars are pursued the better it is for humanity. 
Sharp wars are brief. 

30. 

Ever since the formation and coexistence of modern nations, and 
ever since wars have become great national wars, war has come to 
be acknowledged not to be its own end, but the means to obtain great 
ends of state, or to consist in defense against wrong; and no con- 
ventional restriction of the modes adopted to injure the enemy is 
any longer admitted; but the law of war imposes many limitations 
and restrictions on principles of justice, faith, and honor. 

SECTION II. 

Public and private property of the enemy — Protection of persons, and especially 
of women ; of religion, the arts and sciences— Punishment of crimes against 
the inhabitants of hostile countries. 

31. 

A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public 
movable property until further direction by its government, and 
sequesters for its own benefit or of that of its government all the 
revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or 
nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during 
military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete. 



121 

32. 

A victorious army, by the martial power inherent in the same, 
may suspend, change, or abolish, as far as the martial power extends, 
the relations which arise from the services due, according to the 
existing laws of the invaded country, from one citizen, subject, or 
native of the same to another. 

The commander of the army must leave it to the ultimate treaty 
of peace to settle the permanency of this change. 

33. 

It is no longer considered lawful — on the contrary, it is held to be 

a serious breach of the law of war — to force the subjects of the 

enemy into the service of the victorious government, except the 

latter should proclaim, after a fair and complete conquest of the 

hostile country or district, that it is resolved to keep the country. 

district, or place permanently as its own and make it a portion of 

its own country. 

34. 

As a general rule, the property belonging to churches, to hospitals, 
or o^her establishments of an exclusively charitable character, to 
establishments of education, or foundations for the promotion of 
knowledge, whether public schools, universities, academies of learn- 
ing or observatories, museums of the fine arts, or of a scientific 
character — such property is not to be considered public property in 
the sense of paragraph 31; but it may be taxed or used when the 
public service may require it. 

35. 

Classical works of art, libraries, scientific collections, or precious 
instruments, such as astronomical telescopes, as well as hospitals, 
must be secured against all avoidable injury, even when they are 
contained in fortified places wlrilst besieged or bombarded. 

36. 

If such works of art, libraries, collections, or instruments belong- 
ing to a hostile nation or government, can be removed without 
injury, the ruler of the conquering state or nation may order them 
to be seized and removed for the benefit of the said nation. The 
ultimate ownership is to be settled by the ensuing treaty of peace. 

In no case shall they be sold or given away, if captured by the 
armies of the United States, nor shall they ever be privately appro- 
priated, or wantonly destroyed or injured. 

37. 

The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries 
occupied by them, religion and morality: strictly private property; 
the persons of the inhabitants, especially those of women: and the 
sacredness of domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary shall be 
rigorously punished. 



122 

This rule does not interfere with the right of the victorious invader 
to tax the people or their property, to levy forced loans, to billet 
soldiers, or to appropriate property, especially houses, lands, boats 
or ships, and churches, for temporary and military uses. 

38. 

Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the 
owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the sup- 
port or other benefit of the army or of the United States. 

If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause 

receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain 

indemnity. 

39. 

The salaries of civil officers of the hostile government who remain 
in the invaded territory, and continue the work of their office, and 
can continue it according to the circumstances arising out of the 
war — such as judges, administrative or police officers, officers of city 
or communal governments — are paid from the public revenue of the 
invaded territory, until the military government has reason wholly 
or partially to discontinue it. Salaries or incomes connected with 
purely honorary titles are always stopped. 

40. 

There exists no law or body of authoritative rules of action be- 
tween hostile armies, except that branch of the law of nature and 
nations which is called the law and usages of war on land. 

41. 

All municipal law of the ground on which the armies stand, or of 
the countries to which they belong, is silent and of no effect be- 
tween armies in the field. 

42.. ' 

Slavery, complicating and confounding the ideas of property, 
(that is of a thing,) and of personality, (that is of humanity,) 
exists according to municipal or local law only. The law of nature 
and nations has never acknowledged it. The digest of the Roman 
law enacts the early dictum of the pagan jurist, that " so far as the 
law of nature is concerned, all men are equal." Fugitives escaping 
from a country in which they were slaves, villains, or serfs, into 
another country, have, for centuries past, been held free and ac- 
knowledged free by judicial decisions of European countries, even 
though the municipal law of the country in which the slave had 
taken refuge acknowledged slavery within its own dominions. 

43. 

Therefore, in a war between the United States and a belligerent 
which admits of slavery, if a person held in bondage by that bellig- 
erent be captured by or come as a fugitive under the protection of 



123 

the military forces of the United States, such person is immediately 

entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman. To return such 

person into slavery would amount to enslaving a free person, and 

neither the United States nor any officer under their authority can 

enslave any human being. Moreover, a person so made free by the 

law of war is under the shield of the law of nations, and the former 

owner or State can have, by the law of postliminy, no belligerent 

lien or claim of service. 

44. 

All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded 
country, all destruction of property not commanded by the author- 
ized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a 
place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such 
inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other 
severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the 
offense. 

A soldier, officer or private, in the act of committing such vio- 
lence, and disobeying a superior ordering him to abstain from it, 
may be lawfully killed on the spot by such superior. 

45. 

All captures and booty belong, according to the modern law of 

war, primarily to the government of the captor. 

Prize money, whether on sea or land, can now only be claimed 

under local law. 

46. 

Neither officers nor soldiers are allowed to make use of their 

position or power in the hostile country for private gain, not even 

for commercial transactions otherwise legitimate. Offenses to the 

contrary committed by commissioned officers will be punished with 

cashiering or such other punishment as the nature of the offense 

may require; if by soldiers, they shall be punished according to the 

nature of the offense. 

47. 

Crimes punishable by all penal codes, such as arson, murder, 
maiming, assaults, highway robbery, theft, burglary, fraud, for- 
gery, and rape, if committed by an American soldier in a hostile 
country against its inhabitants, are not only punishable as at home, 
but in all cases in which death is not inflicted, the severer punish- 
ment shall be preferred. 

SECTION Hi. 

Deserters — Prisoners of war — Hostages — Booty on the battle-field. 

48. 

Deserters from the American Army, having entered the service 
of the enemy, suffer death if they fall again into the hands of the 
United States, whether by capture, or being delivered up to the 



I'M 

American Army: and if a deserter from the enemy, having taken 
service in the Army of the United States, is captured by the enemy, 
and punished by them with death or otherwise, it is not a breach 
against the law and usages of war, requiring redress or retaliation. 

49. 

A prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the 
hostile army for active aid, who has fallen into the hands of the 
captor, either fighting or wounded, on the field or in the hospital. 
by individual surrender or by capitulation. 

All soldiers, of whatever species of arms; all men who belong to 
the rising en masse of the hostile country; all those who are attached 
to the army for its efficiency and promote directly the object of the 
war, except such as are hereinafter provided for; all disabled men 
or officers on the field or elsewhere, if captured; all enemies who 
have thrown away their arms and ask for quarter, are prisoners of 
war, and as such exposed to the inconveniences as well as entitled 
to the privileges of a prisoner of war. 

50. 

Moreover, citizens who accompany an army for whatever purpose, 
such as sutlers, editors, or reporters of journals, or contractors, if 
captured, may be made prisoners of war, and be detained as such. 

The monarch and members of the hostile reigning family, male or 
female, the chief, and chief officers of the hostile government, its 
diplomatic agents, and all persons who are of particular and singular 
xise and benefit to the hostile army or its government, are, if cap- 
tured on belligerent ground, and if unprovided with a safe conduct 
granted by the captor's government, prisoners of war. 

51. 

If the people of that portion of an invaded country which is not 
yet occupied by the enemy, or of the whole country, at the approach 
of a hostile army, rise, under a duly authorized levy, en masse to 
resist the invader, they are now treated as public enemies, and, if 
captured, are prisoners of war. 

52. 

No belligerent has the right to declare that he will treat every 
captured man in arms of a levy en masse as a brigand or bandit. 

If, however, the people of a country, or any portion of the same, 
already occupied by an army, rise against it, they are violators of 
the laws of war, and are not entitled to their protection. 

53. 

The enemy's chaplains, officers of the medical staff, apothecaries, 
hospital nurses and servants, if they fall into the hands of the 
American Army, are not prisoners of war, unless the commander 
has reasons to retain them. In this latter case, or if, at their own 



125 

desire, they are allowed to remain with their captured companions. 

they are treated as prisoners of war, and may be exchanged if the 

commander sees fit. 

54. 

A hostage is a person accepted as a pledge for the fulfillment of 
an agreement concluded between belligerents during the war, or in 
consequence of a war. Hostages are rare in the present age. 

55. 

If a hostage is accepted, he is treated like a prisoner of war, ac- 
cording to rank and condition, as circumstances may admit. 

56. 

A prisoner of war is subject to no punishment for being a public 
enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the intentional in- 
fliction of any suffering, or disgrace, by cruel imprisonment, want 
of food, by mutilation, death, or any other barbarity. 

57. 

So soon as a man is armed by a sovereign government and takes 
the soldier's oath of fidelity, he is a belligerent: his killing, wound- 
ing, or other warlike acts are not individual crimes or offenses. No 
belligerent has a right to declare that enemies of a certain class, 
color, or condition, when properly organized as soldiers, will not be 
treated by him as public enemies. 

58. 

The law of nations knows of no distinction of color, and if an 
enemy of the United States should enslave and sell any captured 
persons of their army, it would be a case for the severest retaliation, 
if not redressed upon complaint. 

The United States can not retaliate by enslavement: therefore 
death must be the retaliation for this crime against the law of 
nations. 

59. 

A prisoner of war remains answerable for his crimes committed 
against the captor's army or people, committed before he was 
captured, and for which he has not been punished by his own 
authorities. 

All prisoners of war are liable to the infliction of retaliatory 
measures. 

60. 

It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and 
revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops lias the right to 
declare that it will not give, and therefore will not exited . quarter; 
but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quar- 
ter, in great straits, when his own salvation makes it imposstbl 
cumber himself with prisoners. 



126 

61. 

Troops that give no quarter have no right to kill enemies already- 
disabled on the ground, or prisoners captured by other troops. 

62. 

All troops of the enemy known or discovered to give no quarter 
in general, or to any portion of the army, receive none. 

63. 

Troops who fight in the uniform of their enemies, without any 

plain, striking, and uniform mark of distinction of their own, can 

expect no quarter. 

64. 

If American troops capture a train containing uniforms of the 
enemy, and the commander considers it advisable to distribute them 
for use among his men, some striking mark or sign must be adopted 
to distinguish the American soldier from the enemy. 

65. 

The use of the enemy's national standard, flag, or other emblem 

of nationality, for the purpose of deceiving the enemy in battle, is 

an act of perfidy by which they lose all claim to the protection of 

the laws of war. 

66. 

Quarter having been given to an enemy by American troops, under 
a misapprehension of his true character, he may, nevertheless, be 
ordered to suffer death if, within three days after the battle, it be 
discovered that he belongs to a corps which gives no quarter. 

67. 

The law of nations allows every sovereign government to make 
war upon another sovereign state, and, therefore, admits of no rules 
or laws different from those of regular warfare, regarding the treat- 
ment of prisoners of war, although they may belong to the army of 
a government which the captor may consider as a wanton and unjust 

assailant. 

68. 

Modern wars are not internecine wars, in which the killing of the 
enemy is the object. The destruction of the enemy in modern war, 
and, indeed, modern war itself, are means to obtain that object of 
the belligerent which lies beyond the war. 

Unnecessary or revengeful destruction of life is not lawful, 

69. 

Outposts, sentinels, or pickets are not to be fired upon, except to 
drive them in, or when a positive order, special or general, has been 
issued to that effect. 



127 

70. 

The use of poison in any manner, be it to poison wells, or food, or 
arms, is wholly excluded from modern warfare. He that uses it 
puts himself out of the pale of the law and usages of war. 

71. 

Whoever intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy 
already wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy, or who orders or 
encourages soldiers to do so, shall suffer death, if duly convicted, 
whether he belongs to the Army of the United States, or is an 
enemy captured after having committed his misdeed. 

72. 

Money and other valuables on the person of a prisoner, such as 
watches or jewelry, as well as extra clothing, are regarded by the 
American Army as the private property of the prisoner, and the 
appropriation of such valuables or money is considered dishonor- 
able, and is prohibited. 

Nevertheless, if large sums are found upon the persons of pris- 
oners, or in their possession, they shall be taken from them, and 
the surplus, after providing for their own support, appropriated for 
the use of the army, under the direction of the commander, unless 
otherwise ordered by the government. Nor can prisoners claim, as 
private property, large sums found and captured in their train, 
although they have been placed in the private luggage of the 
prisoners. 

73. 

All officers, when captured, must surrender their side arms to 
the captor. They may be restored to the prisoner in marked cases, 
by the commander, to signalize admiration of his distinguished 
bravery or approbation of his humane treatment of prisoners before 
his capture. The captured officer to whom they may be restored 
can not wear them during captivity. 

74. 

A prisoner of war, being a public enemy, is the prisoner of the 
government, and not of the captor. No ransom can be paid by a 
prisoner of war to his individual captor or to any officer in com- 
mand. The government alone releases captives, according to rules 
prescribed by itself. 

75. 

Prisoners of war are subject to confinement or imprisonment 
such as may be deemed necessary on account of safety, but they are 
to be subjected to no other intentional suffering or indignity. The 
confinement and mode of treating a prisoner may be varied daring 
his captivity, according to the demands of safety. 



128 

76. 

Prisoners of war shall be fed upon plain and wholesome food, 
whenever practicable, and treated with humanity. 

They may be required to work for the benefit of the captor's 
government, according to their rank and condition. 

77. 

A prisoner of war who escapes may be shot or otherwise killed in 
his flight: but neither death nor any other punishment shall be 
inflicted upon him simply for his attempt to escape, which the law 
of war does not consider a crime. Stricter means of security shall 
be used after an unsuccessful attempt to escape. 

If, however, a conspiracy is discovered, the purpose of which is a 
united or general escape, the conspirators may be rigorously pun- 
ished, even with death; and capital punishment may also be inflicted 
upon prisoners of war discovered to have plotted rebellion against 
the authorities of the captors, whether in union with fellow prisoners 

or other persons. 

78. 

If prisoners of war, having given no pledge nor made any promise 
on their honor, forcibly or otherwise escape, and are captured again 
in battle after having rejoined their own army, they shall not be 
punished for their escape, but shall be treated as simple prisoners of 
war, although they will be subjected to stricter confinement. 

79. 

Every captured wounded enemy shall be medically treated, accord- 
ing to the ability of the medical staff. 

80. 

Honorable men, when captured, will abstain from giving to the 
enemy information concerning their own army, and the modern law 
of war x>ermits no longer the use of any violence against prisoners 
in order to extort the desired information or to punish them for 
having given false information. 

SECTION IV. 

Partisans — Armed enemies not belonging to the hostile army— Scouts — Armed 

prowlers — War-rebels. 

81. 

» 

Partisans are soldiers armed and wearing the uniform of their 
army, but belonging to a corps which acts detached from the main 
body for the purpose of making inroads into the territory occupied 
by the enemy. If captured, they are entitled to all the privileges 
of the prisoner of war. 



129 



82. 



Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fight- 
ing, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, 
without commission, without being part and portion of the organ- 
ized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but 
who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, 
or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pur- 
suits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of sol- 
diers — such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, 
therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners 
of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or 

pirates. 

83. 

Scouts, or single soldiers, if disguised in the dress of the country 
or in the uniform of the army hostile to their own, employed in 
obtaining information, if found within or lurking about the lines of 
the captor, are treated as spies, and suffer death. 

84. 

Armed prowlers, by whatever names they may be called, or per- 
sons of the enemy's territory, who steal within the lines of the 
hostile army for the purpose of robbing, killing, or of destroying 
bridges, roads, or canals, or of robbing or destroying the mail, or of 
cutting the telegraph wires, are not entitled to the privileges of the 
prisoner of war. 

85. 

War-rebels are persons within an occupied territory who rise in 
arms against the occupying or conquering army, or against the 
authorities established by the same. If captured, they may suffer 
death, whether they rise singly, in small or large bands, and whether 
called upon to do so by their own, but expelled, government or not. 
They are not prisoners of war; nor are they if discovered and 
secured before their conspiracy has matured to an actual rising or 
armed violence. 

SECTION V. 

Safe-conduct — Spies — War-traitors — Captured messengers — Abuse of the flag of 

truce. 

86. 

All intercourse between the territories occupied by belligerent 
armies, whether by traffic, by letter, by travel, or in any other way, 
ceases. This is the general rule, to be observed without special 
proclamation. 

Exceptions to this rule, whether by safe-conduct or permission to 
trade on a small or large scale, or by exchanging mails, or by travel 
from one territory into the other, can take place only according to 

20681 9 



130 

agreement approved by the government, or by the highest military 
authority. 
Contraventions of this rule are highly punishable. 

87. 

Ambassadors, and all other diplomatic agents of neutral powers, 
accredited to the enemy, may receive safe-conducts through the 
territories occupied by the belligerents, unless there are military 
reasons to the contrary, and unless they may reach the place of 
their destination conveniently by another route. It implies no in- 
ternational affront if the safe-conduct is declined. Such passes are 
usually given by the supreme authority of the state, and not by 

subordinate officers. 

88. 

A spy is a person who secretly, in disguise or under false pretense, 
seeks information with the intention of communicating it to the 
enemy. 

The spy is punishable with death by hanging by the neck, whether 

or not he succeed in obtaining the information or in conveying it to 

the enemy. 

89. 

If a citizen of the United States obtains information in a legiti- 
mate manner and betrays it to the enemy, be he a military or civil 
officer, or a private citizen, he shall suffer death. 

90. 

A traitor under the law of war, or a war-traitor, is a person in a 
place or district under martial law who, unauthorized by the mili- 
tary commander, gives information of any kind to the enemy, or 

holds intercourse with him. 

91. 

The war-traitor is always severely punished. If his offense con- 
sists in betraying to the enemy anything concerning the condition, 
safety, operations, or plans of the troops holding or occupying the 
place or district, his punishment is death. 

92. 

If the citizen or subject of a country or place invaded or con- 
quered gives information to his own government, from which he is 
separated by the hostile army, or to the army of his government, he 
is a war-traitor, and death is the penalty of his offense. 

93. 

All armies in the field stand in need of guides, and impress them 
if they can not obtain them otherwise. 

94. 

No person having been forced by the enemy to serve as guide is 
punishable for having done so. 



131 

95. 

If a citizen of a hostile and invaded district voluntarily serves as 

a guide to the enemy, or offers to do so, he is deemed a war-traitor, 

and shall suffer death. 

96. 

A citizen serving voluntarily as a guide against his own country 

commits treason, and will be dealt with according to the law of his 

country. 

97. 

Guides, when it is clearly proved that they have misled intention- 
ally, may "be put to death. 

98. 

All unauthorized or secret communication with the enemy is con- 
sidered treasonable by the law of war. 

Foreign residents in an invaded or occupied territory, or foreign 
visitors in the same, can claim no immunity from this law. They 
may communicate with foreign parts, or with the inhabitants of the 
hostile country, so far as the military authority permits, but no fur- 
ther. Instant expulsion from the occupied territory would be the 
very least punishment for the infraction of this rule. 

99. 

A messenger carrying written dispatches or verbal messages from 
one portion of the army, or from a besieged place, to another por- 
tion of the same army, or its government, if armed, and in the 
uniform of his army, and if captured , while doing so, in the territory 
occupied by the enemy, is treated by the captor as a prisoner of 
war. If not in uniform, nor a soldier, the circumstances connected 
with his capture must determine the disposition that shall be made 

of him. 

100. 

A messenger or agent who attempts to steal through the territory 
occupied by the enemy, to further, in any manner, the interests of 
the enemy, if captured, is not entitled to the privileges of the pris- 
oner of war, and may be dealt with according to the circumstances 

of the case. 

101. 

While deception in war is admitted as a just and necessary means 
of hostility, and is consistent with honorable warfare, the common 
law of war allows even capital punishment for clandestine or treach- 
erous attempts to injure an enemy, because they are so dangerous, 
and it is so difficult to guard against them. 

102. 

The law of war, like the criminal law regarding other offenses, 
makes no difference on account of the difference of sexes, concern- 
ing the spy, the war-traitor, or the war-rebel. 



132 

103. 

Spies, war-traitors, and war-rebels are not exchanged according 
to the common law of war. The exchange of such persons would 
require a special cartel, authorized by the government, or, at a 
great distance from it, by the chief commander of the army in the 
field. 

104. 

A successful spy or war-traitor, safely returned to his own army, 
and afterwards captured as an enemy, is not subject to punishment 
for his acts as a spy or war-traitor, but he may be held in closer cus- 
tody as a person individually dangerous. 

SECTION VI. 
Exchange of prisoners — Flags of truce — Flags of protection. 

105. 

Exchanges of prisoners take place — number for number — rank for 
rank — wounded for wounded — with added condition for added con- 
dition — such, for instance, as not to serve for a certain period. 

106. 

In exchanging prisoners of war, such numbers of persons of infe- 
rior rank may be substituted as an equivalent for one of superior 
rank as may be agreed upon by cartel, which requires the sanction 
of the government, or of the commander of the army in the field. 

107. 

A prisoner of war is in honor bound truly to state to the captor 
his rank; and he is not to assume a lower rank than belongs to him, 
in order to cause a more advantageous exchange, nor a higher rank, 
for the purpose of obtaining better treatment. 

Offenses to the contrary have been justly punished by the com- 
manders of released prisoners, and may be good cause for refusing 

to release such prisoners. 

108. 

The surplus number of prisoners of war remaining after an ex- 
change has taken place is sometimes released either for the payment 
of a stipulated sum of money, or, in urgent cases, of provision, cloth- 
ing, or other necessaries. 

Such arrangement, however, requires the sanction of the highest 

authority. 

109. 

The exchange of prisoners of war is an act of convenience to both 
belligerents. If no general cartel has been concluded, it can not be 
demanded by either of them. No belligerent is obliged to exchange 
prisoners of war. 

A cartel is voidable as soon as either party has violated it. 



133 

110. 

No exchange of prisoners shall be made except after complete 
capture, and after an accurate account of them, and a list of the 
captured officers, has been taken. 

111. 

The bearer of a flag of truce can not insist upon being admitted. 
He must always be admitted with great caution. Unnecessary fre- 
quency is carefully to be avoided. 

112. 

If the bearer of a flag of truce offer himself during an engage- 
ment, he can be admitted as a very rare exception only. It is no 
breach of good faith to retain such flag of truce, if admitted during 
the engagement. Firing is not required to cease on the appearance 

of a flag of truce in battle. 

113. 

If the bearer of a flag of truce, presenting himself during an en- 
gagement, is killed or wounded, it furnishes no ground of complaint 

whatever. 

114. 

If it be discovered, and fairly proved, that a flag of truce has 
been abused for surreptitiously obtaining military knowledge, the 
bearer of the flag thus abusing his sacred character is deemed a spy. 

So sacred is the cnaracter of a flag of truce, and so necessary is its 
sacredness, that while its abuse is an especially heinous offense, 
great caution is requisite, on the other hand, in convicting the bearer 
of a flag of truce as a spy. 

115. 

It is customary to designate by certain flags (usually yellow) the 
hospitals in places which are shelled, so that the besieging enemy 
may avoid firing on them. The same has been done in battles when 
hospitals are situated within the field of the engagement. 

116. 

Honorable belligerents often request that the hospitals within the 
territory of the enemy may be designated, so that they may be 
spared. 

An honorable belligerent allows himself to be guided by flags or 
signals of protection as much as the contingencies and the necessities 
of the fight will permit. 

117. 

It is justly considered an act of bad faith, of infamy or fiend- 
ishness, to deceive the enemy by flags of protection. Such act of 
bad faith may be good cause for refusing to respect such flags. 



134 

118. 

The besieging belligerent has sometimes,requested the besieged to 
designate the buildings containing collections of works of art, scien- 
tific museums, astronomical observatories, or precious libraries, so 
that their destruction may be avoided as much as possible. 

SECTION VII. 

The parole. 

119. 

Prisoners of war may be released from captivity by exchange, 
and, under certain circumstances, also by parole. 

120. 

The term ' ' parole ' ' designates the pledge of individual good faith 
and honor to do, or to omit doing, certain acts after he who gives 
his parole shall have been dismissed, wholly or partially, from the 
power of the captor. 

121. 

The pledge of the parole is always an individual, but not a private 

act. 

122. 

The parole applies chiefly to prisoners of war whom the captor 

allows to return to their country, or to live in greater freedom 

within the captor's country or territory, on conditions stated in the 

parole. 

123. 

Release of prisoners of war by exchange is the general rule; release 
by parole is the exception. 

124. 

Breaking the parole is punished with death when the person 

breaking the parole is captured again. 

Accurate lists, therefore, of the paroled persons must be kept by 

the belligerents. 

125. 

When paroles are given and received, there must be an exchange 
of two written documents, in whioh the name and rank of the 
paroled individuals are accurately and truthfully stated. 

126. 

Commissioned officers only are allowed to give their parole, and 
they can give it only with the permission of their superior, as long 
as a superior in rank is within reach. 

127. 

No noncommissioned officer or private can give his parole except 
through an officer. Individual paroles not given through an officer 



135 

are not only void, but subject the individuals giving them to the 

punishment of death as deserters. The only admissible exception is 

where individuals, properly separated from their commands, have 

suffered long confinement without the possibility of being paroled 

through an officer. 

128. 

No paroling on the battlefield; no paroling of entire bodies of 
troops after a battle; and no dismissal of large numbers of prison- 
ers, with a general declaration that they are paroled, is permitted 

or of any value. 

129. 

In capitulations for the surrender of strong places or fortified 
camps the commanding officer, in cases of urgent necessity, may 
agree that the troops under his command shall not fight again dur- 
ing the war, unless exchanged. 

130. 

The usual pledge given in the parole is not to serve during the 
existing war, unless exchanged. 

This pledge refers only to the active service in the field, against 
the paroling belligerent or his allies actively engaged in the same 
war. These cases of breaking the parole are patent acts, and can be 
visited with the punishment of death ; but the pledge does not refer 
to internal service, such as recruiting or drilling the recruits, forti- 
fying places not besieged, quelling civil commotions, fighting against 
belligerents unconnected with the paroling belligerents, or to civil 
or diplomatic service for which the paroled officer may be employed. 

131. 

If the government does not approve of the parole, the paroled 
officer must return into captivity, and should the enemy refuse to 
receive him, he is free of his parole. 

132. 

A belligerent government may declare, by a general order, whether 
it will allow paroling, and on what conditions it will allow it. Such 
order is communicated to the enemy. 

133. 

No prisoner of war can be forced by the hostile government to 
parole himself, and no government is obliged to parole prisoners of 
war, or to parole all captured officers, if it paroles any. As the 
pledging of the parole is an individual act, so is paroling, on the 
other hand, an act of choice on the part of the belligerent. 

134. 

The commander of an occupying army may require of the civil 
officer of the enemy, and of its citizens, any pledge he may consider 
necessary for the safety or security of his army, and upon their fail- 
ure to give it he may arrest, confine, or detain them. 



130 

SECTION VIII. 

Armistice — Capitulation. 

135. 

An armistice is the cessation of active hostilities for a period 
agreed between belligerents. It must be agreed npon in writing, 
jind duly ratified by the highest authorities of the contending parties. 

13b. 

If an armistice be declared, without conditions, it extends no 
further than to require a total cessation of hostilities along the 
front of both belligerents. 

If conditions be agreed upon, they should be clearly expressed, 

and must be rigidly adhered to by both parties. If either party 

violates any express condition, the armistice may be declared null 

and void by the other. 

137. 

An armistice may be general, and valid for all points and lines of 
the belligerents; or special, that is, referring to certain troops or 
certain localities only. 

An armistice may be concluded for a definite time; or for an 
indefinite time, during which either belligerent may resume hos- 
tilities on giving the notice agreed upon to the other. 

138. 

The motives which induce the one or the other belligerent to con- 
clude an armistice, whether it be expected to be preliminary to a 
treaty of peace, or to prepare during the armistice for a more vigorous 
prosecution of the war, does in no way affect the character of the 

armistice itself. 

139. 

An armistice is binding upon the belligerents from the day of 
the agreed commencement; but the officers of the armies are responsi- 
ble from the day only when they receive official information of its 

existence. 

140. 

Commanding officers have the right to conclude armistices bind- 
ing on the district over which their command extends, but such 
armistice is subject to the ratification of the superior authority, and 
ceases so soon as it is made known to the enemy that the armistice 
is not ratified, even if a certain time for the elapsing between giving 
notice of cessation and the resumption of hostilities should have been 

stipulated for. 

141. 

It is incumbent upon the contracting parties of an armistice to 
stipulate what intercourse of persons or traffic between the inhabi- 
tants of the territories occupied by the hostile armies shall be allowed, 
if any. 



137 

If nothing is stipulated the intercourse remains suspended, as 

during actual hostilities. 

142. 

An armistice is not a partial or a temporary peace; it is only the 

suspension of military operations to the extent agreed upon by the 

parties. 

143. 

When an armistice is concluded between a fortified place and the 
army besieging it, it is agreed by all the authorities on this subject 
that the besieger must cease all extension, perfection, or advance of 
his attacking works as much so as from attacks by main force. 

But as there is a difference of opinion among martial jurists, 

whether the besieged have the right to repair breaches or to erect 

new works of defense within the place during the armistice, this 

point should be determined by express agreement between the 

parties. 

144. 

So soon as a capitulation is signed, the capitulator has no right to 

demolish, destroy, or injure the works, arms, stores, or ammunition, 

in his possession, during the time which elapses between the signing 

and the execution of the capitulation, unless otherwise stipulated in 

the same. 

145. 

When an armistice is clearly broken by one of the parties, the 
other party is released from all obligation to observe it. 

146. 

Prisoners taken in the act of breaking an armistice must be 
treated as prisoners of war, the officer alone being responsible who 
gives the order for such a violation of an armistice. The highest 
authority of the belligerent aggrieved may demand redress for the 
infraction of an armistice. 

147. 

Belligerents sometimes conclude an armistice while their pleni- 
potentiaries are met to discuss the conditions of a treaty of peace; 
but plenipotentiaries may meet without a preliminary armistice; in 
the latter case, the war is carried on without any abatement. 

SECTION IX. 

Assassination. 

148. 

The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual 
belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile 
government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any 
captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such inten- 
tional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The 



138 

sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in con- 
sequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. 
Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the 
assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism. 

SECTION X. 

Insurrection — Civil War — Rebellion. 
149. 

Insurrection is the rising of people in arms against their govern- 
ment, or a portion of it, or against one or more of its laws, or 
against an officer or officers of the government. It may be confined 
to mere armed resistance, or it may have greater ends in view. 

150. 

Civil war is war between two or more portions of a country or 
state, each contending for the mastery of the whole, and each claim- 
ing to be the legitimate government. The term is also sometimes 
applied to war of rebellion, when the rebellious provinces or portions 
of the state are contiguous to those containing the seat of govern- 
ment. 

151. 

The term rebellion is applied to an insurrection of large extent, 
and is usually a war between the legitimate government of a coun- 
try and portions of provinces of the same who seek to throw off their 
allegiance to it and set up a government of their own. 

152. 

When humanity induces the adoption of the rules of regular war 
toward rebels, whether the adoption is partial or entire, it does in 
no way whatever imply a partial or complete acknowledgment of 
their government, if they have set up one, or of them, as an inde- 
pendent and sovereign power. Neutrals have no right to make the 
adoption of the rules of war by the assailed government toward 
rebels the ground of their own acknowledgment of the revolted 
people as an independent power. 

153. 

Treating captured rebels as prisoners of war, exchanging them, 
concluding of cartels, capitulations, or other warlike agreements 
with them; addressing officers of a rebel army by the rank they 
may have in the same; accepting flags of truce; or, on the other 
hand, proclaiming martial law in their territory, or levying war 
taxes or forced loans, or doing any other act sanctioned or demanded 
by the law and usages of public war between sovereign belligerents, 
neither proves nor establishes an acknowledgment of the rebellious 
people, or of the government which they may have erected, as a 
public or sovereign power. Nor does the adoption of the rules of 



139 

war toward rebels imply an engagement with them extending be- 
yond the limits of these rules. It is victory in the field that ends 
the strife and settles the future relations between the contending 

parties. 

154. 

Treating, in the field, the rebellious enemy according to the law 
and usages of war has never prevented the legitimate government 
from trying the leaders of the rebellion or chief rebels for high 
treason, and from treating them accordingly, unless they are 
included in a general amnesty. 

155. 

All enemies in regular war are divided into two general classes — 
that is to say, into combatants and noncombatants, or unarmed 
citizens of the hostile government. 

The military commander of the legitimate government, in a war 
of rebellion, distinguishes between the loyal citizen in the revolted 
portion of the country and the disloyal citizen. The disloyal citi- 
zens may further be classified into those citizens known to sympa- 
thize with the rebellion without positively aiding it, and those who, 
without taking up arms, give positive aid and comfort to the rebel- 
lious enemy without being bodily forced thereto. 

156. 

Common justice and plain expediency require that the military 
commander protect the manifestly loyal citizens, in revolted terri- 
tories, against the hardships of the war as much as the common 
misfortune of all war admits. 

The commander will throw the burden of the war, as much as 
lies within his power, on the disloyal citizens of the revolted por- 
tion or province, subjecting them to a stricter police than the non- 
combatant enemies have to suffer in regular war; and if he deems 
it appropriate, or if his government demands of him that every citi- 
zen shall, by an oath of allegiance, or by some other manifest act, 
declare his fidelity to the legitimate government, he may expel, 
transfer, imprison, or fine the revolted citizens who refuse to pledge 
themselves anew as citizens obedient to the law and loyal to the 
government. 

Whether it is expedient to do so, and whether reliance can be 
placed upon such oaths, the commander or his government have the 
right to decide. 

157. 

Armed or unarmed resistance by citizens of the United States 
against the lawful movements of their troops is levying war against 
the United States, and is therefore treason. 



APPENDIX III. 



CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CERTAIN 
POWERS, WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND. 



Signed at The Hague July 29, 1899. 

Ratification advised by tJie Senate March Ik, 1902. 

Ratified by the President of the United States March 19, 1902. 

Ratifications deposited with the Netherlands Government September U, 1900. 

Proclaimed April 11, 1902. 



By the President of the United States of America. 



A PROCLAMATION. 



Whereas a Convention with respect to the laws and customs of war on land was concluded 
and signed on July 29, 1899, by the Plenipotentiaries of the United States of America, Ger- 
many, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Mexico, France, Great Britain and 
Ireland, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal] 
Roumania, Russia, Servia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Turkey, and Bulgaria, the original of 
which Convention, in the French language, is word for word as follows: 

[Translation.] 

CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CONVENTION CONCERNANT LE6 LOIS ET COU- 
CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND. TUAIES DK LA GUERRE BUR TERRE. 



His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King 
of Prussia; His Majesty the Emperor of 
Austria, King of Bohemia etc., and Apos- 
tolic King of Hungary; His Majesty the 
King of the Belgians ; His Majesty the 
King of Denmark ; His Majesty the King of 
Spain and in His Name Her Majesty the 
Queen Regent of the Kingdom; the Presi- 
dent of the United States of America ; the 
President of the United Mexican States ; 
the President of the French Republic ; Her 
Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom 
of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of 
India; His Majesty the King of the Hel- 
lenes; His Majesty the King of Italy; His 
Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Royal 
Highness the Grand Duke of Luxemburg, 
Duke of Nassau; His Highness the Prince 
of Montenegro; Her Majesty the Queen of 
the Netherlands; His Imperial Majesty the 
Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of 



Sa Majeste I'Empereur d'AUemagne, Roi de 
Prusse ; Sa Majeste* I'Empereur d'Autriche, 
Roi de Boheme etc. et Roi Apostolique de 
Hongrie ; Sa Majeste le Roi defl Beiges; Sa 
Majeste le Roi de Danemark; Sa Majeste Le 
Roid'Espagneet en Son Norn Sa Majeste la 
Reine-Regente du Royaume; le President 
des Etats-Unis d'Amerique; le President 
des Etats-Unis Mexieains; le President de 
la Republique Francaise; Sa Majeste la 
Reine du Royaume- Uni de la Grande 
Bretagne et d'Irlande, Imperatrice des 
Indes; Sa Majeste le Roi des Hellenes; 
Sa Majeste Le Roi d'ltalie; Sa Majeste 
I'Empereur du Japon ; Sou AltesBe Royale 
le Grand-Due de Luxemburg, Due de 
Nassau ; Son Altesse le Prince de Monti- 
negro ; Sa ."Majeste la Reine des Pays-Baa ; 

Sa Majeste I lnjiei iale le S'diali de Perse j Be 

Majeste le Bol de Portugal et des Algarves 
etc.; Sa Majeste le Bol de Boumanie; Sa 



(141) 



U2 



Portugal and of the Algarves etc.; His 

Majesty the King of Roumania ; His 

Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias; 

His Majesty the King of Servia ; His 

Majesty the King of Siam ; His Majesty the 

King of Sweden and Norway ; II is Majesty 

the Emperor of the Ottomans and His Royal 

Highness the Prince of Bulgaria. 

Considering that, while seeking means to 

preserve peace and prevent armed conflicts 

among nations, it is likewise necessary to 

have regard to cases where an appeal to arms 

may be caused by events which their solicitude 

could not avert; 

Animated by the desire to serve, even in 
this extreme hypothesis, the interests of 
humanity and the ever increasing require- 
ments of civilization ; 

Thinking it important, with this object, to 
revise the laws and general customs of war, 
either with the view of defining them more 
precisely, or of laying down certain limits for 
the purpose of modifying their severity as far 
as possible; 

Inspired by these views which are enjoined 
at the present day, as they were twenty-five 
years ago at the time of the Brussels Confer- 
ence in 1874, by a wise and generous fore- 
sight; 

Have, in this spirit, adopted a great number 
of provisions, the object of which is to define 
and govern the usages of war on land. 

In view of the High Contracting Parties, 
these provisions, the wording of which has 
been inspired by the desire to diminish the 
evils of war so far as military necessities per- 
mit, are destined to serve as general rules of 
conduct for belligerents in their relations 
with each other and with populations. 

It has not, however, been possible to agree 
forthwith on provisions embracing all the cir- 
cumstances which occur in practice. 

On the other hand, it could not be in- 
tended by the High Contracting Parties that 
the cases not provided for should, for want 
of a written provision, be left to the arbitrary 
judgment of the military Commanders. 

Until a more complete code of the laws of 
war is issued, the High Contracting Parties 
think it right to declare that in cases not 
included in the Regulations adopted by them, 
populations and belligerents remain under the 
protection and empire of the principles of in- 
ternational law, as they result from the usages 
established between civilized nations, from the 
laws of humanity, and the requirements of 
tlie public conscience ; > 



Majeste l'Empereur de Toutes les Russiee : 
Sa Majeste le Roi de Serbie ; Sa Majeste le 
Roi de Siam; Sa Majeste le Roi de Suede 
et de Norvege ; Sa Majeste rEmpereur des 
( Ottomans et Son Altesse Royale le Prince 
de Bulgarie 



Considerant que, tout en recherchant les 
moyens de sauvegarder la paix et de prevenir 
les conflits armes entre les nations, il importe 
de se preoccuper egalement du cas ou. l'appel 
aux armes serait amene par des evenements 
que Leur sollicitude n'aurait pu detourner; 

Animes du desir de servir encore, dans cette 
hypothese extreme, les interets de l'humanite 
et les exigences toujours progressives de la 
civilisation; 

Estimant qu'il importe, a cette fin, de reviser 
les lois et coutumes generates de la guerre. 
soit dans le but de les definir avec plus de 
precision, soit afin d'y tracer certaines limites 
destinees a en restreindre autant que possible 
les rigueurs; 

S'inspirant de ces vues recommandees 
aujourd'hui, comme il y a vingt-cinq ans, lors 
de la Conference de Bruxelles de 3874, par une 
sage et genereuse prevoyance; 

Out, dans cet esprit, adopte un grand 
nombre de dispositions qui ont pour objet de 
definir et de regler les usages de la guerre 
sur terre. 

Selon les vues des Hautes Parties contrac- 
tantes, ces dispositions, dont la redaction a 
ete inspiree par le desir de diminuer les 
maux de la guerre, autant que les necessites 
militaires le permettent, sont destinees a 
servir de regie generate de conduite aux bel- 
ligerants, dans leurs rapports entre eux et 
avec les populations. 

II n'a pas ete possible toutefois de concerter 
des maintenant des stipulations s'etendant a 
toutes les circonstances qui se presententdans 
la pratique. 

D'autre part, il ne pouvait entrer dans les 
intentions des Hautes Parties Contractantes 
que les cas non prevus fussent, faute de stipu- 
lation ecrite, laissees k I'appreYiation arbi- 
trage de ceux qui dirigent les arniees. 

En attendant qu'un code plus complet des 
lois de la guerre puisse etre edicte, les Hautes 
Parties Contractantes jugent opportun de con- 
stater que, dans les cas non compris dans les 
dispositions reglementaires adoptees par Elles. 
les populations et les belligerants restent sous 
la sauvegarde et sous l'empire des principes 
du droit des gens, tels qu'ils resultent des 
usages etablis entre nations civilisees, des lois 
de l'humanitfi et des exigences de la conscience 
publique. 



143 



They declare that it is in this sense espe- 
cially that Articles I and II of the Regula- 
tions adopted must be understood; 

The High Contracting Parties, desiring to 
conclude a Convention to this effect, have ap- 
pointed as their Plenipotentiaries, to wit : 

His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King 
of Prussia : His Excellency Count de Munster, 
Prince of Derneburg, His Ambassador at Paris. 

His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King 
of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hun- 
gary : His Excellency Count K. de "Welser- 
sheimb, His Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary ; Mr. Alexander Okolicsanyi 
d'Okolicsna, His Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague. 

His Majesty the King of the Belgians : His 
Excellency Mr. Auguste Beernaert, His Min- 
ister of State, President of the Chamber of 
Eepresentatives ; Count de Grelle Rogier, His 
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo- 
tentiary at The Hague; the Chevalier Des- 
camps, Senator. 

His Majesty the King of Denmark : His 
Chamberlain Fr. E. de Bille, His Envoy Ex- 
traordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at 
London . 

His Majesty the King of Spain and in His 
Name, Her Majesty the Queen Regent of the 
Kingdom* His Excellency the Duke of Tetuan, 
formerly Minister for Foreign Affairs ; Mr. \Y. 
Ramirez de Villa Urrutia, His Envoy Extra- 
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Brus- 
sels ; Mr. Arthur de Baguer, His Envoy Extra- 
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The 
Hague. 

The President of the United States of 
America: Mr. Stanford Newel, Envoy Extra- 
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The 
Hague. 

The President of the United Mexican States : 
Mr.de Mier, Envoy Extraordinary and Minis- 
ter Plenipotentiary at Paris; Mi-. Zenil, Min- 
ister Resident at Brussels. 

The President of the French Republic : Mr. 
Leon Bourgeois, former President of the Coun- 
cil, former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mem- 
ber of the Chamber of Deputies ; Mr. Georges 
Bihourd, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary at The Hague ; the Baron 
d'Estournelles de Constant, Minister Plenipo- 
tentiary, Member of the Chamber of Deputies. 

Her Majesty the Queen of the United King- 
dom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress 
of India : His Excellency the Right Honor- 
able Baron Pauncefote of Preston, Member of 
Her Majesty's Privy Council, Her Ambassador 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at Waah- 



Elles declarent que c'est dans ce sens que 
doivent s'entendre notamment les articles nn 
et deux du Reglement adopte: 

Les Hautes Parties contractantes desiranl 
conclureune Convention aceteffetont Homme 
pour Leurs plenipotontiaires, savoir: 

Sa Majeste l'Empereur d'Allemagne, Roi 
de Prusse: Son Excellence le Comte de ."Mini- 
ster, Prince de Derneburg, Son Ambassadeur 
a Paris. 

Sa Majeste l'Empereur d'Autriche. Hoi de 
Boheme etc., et Roi Apostolique de Hongrie: 
Son Excellence le Conite R. de Welsersheinih. 
Son Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plenipo- 
tentiaire. M. Alexandre Okolicsanyi d'Okoli- 
csna, Son Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre 
plenipotentiaire a la Haye. 

Sa Majeste le Roi des Beiges: Son Excel- 
lence M. Auguste Beernaert, Son Ministre 
d'Etat, President de la Chambre des Repre- 
sentants. M. le Comte De Grelle Rogier, Sun 
Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre plenipoten- 
tiaire a la Haye. M. le Chevalier Descamps, 
Senateur. 

Sa Majeste le Roi de Danemark: Son 
Chanibellan Fr. E. de Bille, Son Envoye ex- 
traordinaire et Ministre plenipotentiaire ., 
Londres. 

Sa Majeste le Roi d'Espagne et en Son 
Nom, Sa Majeste la Reine-Regente du Roy- 
aume : Son Excellence le Due de Tetuan. 
Ancien Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres. M. 
W. Ramirez de Villa Urrutia, Son Envoye ex- 
traordinaire et Ministre plenipotentiaire 
Bruxelles. M. Arthur de Baguer, Son En- 
voye extraordinaire et Ministre plenipo 
tiaire a la Have. 

Le President des Etats-Enis d'Amerique: 
M. Stanford Newel. Envoye" extraordinaii 
Ministre plenipotentiaire a la Have. 

Le President des Etats-Unis Mexicains : M. 
de Mier, Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre 
plenipotentiaire a Paris. M. Zenil, Ministre- 

liesident a Bruxelles. 

Le President de la Hepublique Francaise 
M. Leon Bourgeois. Ancien President du ( "i 
seil, Ancien Ministre des Affaires Estrange 
Membre de la Chambre des Deputes. M. 
Georges Bihourd, Envoye extraordinaire et 
Ministre plenipotentiaire a la Haye. M. le 
Baron d'Estournelles de Constant, Ministre 
plenipotentiaire, Membre de la Chambre dee 

Deputes. 

Sa Majeste la Heine du Royaume-Eni de hi 
Grande Bretagne et d'Irlande, [mperatrice 
des Imles: Son Excellence le Ties Honorable 
Baron Pauncefote de Preston, Membre du 
Conseil Prive de Sa Majeste. Son Ami 
deur extraordinaire et pHinipoteutiaire .1 



144 



ington; Sir Henry Howard, Her Envoy Extra- 
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The 
Hague. 

His Majesty the King of the Hellenes : Mr. 
N. Delyanni, former President of the Council, 
former Minister for Foreign Affairs, His En- 
voy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipoten- 
tiary at Paris. 

His Majesty the King of Italy : His Ex- 
cellency Count Nigra, His Ambassador at 
Vienna, Senator of the Kingdom ; Count A. 
Zannini, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minis- 
ter Plenipotentiary at The Hague ; Com- 
mander Guido Pompilj, Deputy in the Italian 
Parliament. 

His Majesty the Emperor of Japan v Mr. 
I. Motono, His Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at Brussels. 

His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of 
Luxemburg, Duke of Nassau : His Excellency 
Mr. Eyschen, His Minister of State, President 
of the Grand Ducal Government. 

His Highness the Prince of Montenegro : 
His Excellency Mr. de Staal, Privy Coun- 
cillor, Ambassador of Russia at London. 

Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands : 
the Jonkheer A. P. C. van Karnebeek, former 
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Member of the 
Second Chamber of the States General ; Gen- 
eral J. C. C. den Beer Poortugael, former 
Minister of War, Member of the Council of 
State; Mr. T. M. C. Asser, Member of the 
Council of State ; Mr. E. N. Rahusen, Member 
of the First Chamber of the States General. 

His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia : 
His Aid-de-camp General Mirza Riza Khan, 
Arfa-ud-Dovleh, His Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg 
and at Stockholm. 

His Majesty the King of Portugal and of 
the Algarves, etc.: Count de Macedo, Peer 
of the Kingdom, former Minister of Marine 
and of the Colonies, His Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at Madrid ; 
Mr. d'Ornellas et Vasconcellos, Peer of the 
Kingdom, His Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg ; 
Count de Selir, His Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague. 

His Majesty the King of Roumania: Mr. 
Alexander Beldiman, His Envoy Extraordi- 
nary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Berlin ; 
Mr. Jean N. Papiniu, His Envoy Extraordi- 
nary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The 
Hague. 

His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias : 
His Excellency Mr. de Staal, Privy Coun- 
cillor, His Ambassador at London ; Mr. de 
Martens, Permanent Member of the Council 



Washington. Sir Henry Howard, Son En- 
voys' extraordinaire et Ministre plenipoten- 
tiaire a la Haye. 

Sa Majeste le Roi des Hellenes : M. N. 
Delyanni, Ancien President du Conseil, An- 
cien Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, Son 
Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre plenipoten- 
tiaire a Paris. 

Sa Majeste le Roi d'ltalie : Son Excellence 
le Comte Nigra, Son Ambassadeur a Vienne, 
Senateur du Royaume. M. le Comte A. Zan- 
nini, Son Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre 
plenipotentiaire a la Haye. M. le Com- 
mandeur Guido Pompilj, Depute au Parle- 
ment Italien. 

Sa Majeste l'Empereur du Japon : M. I. 
Motono, Son Envoye extraordinaire et Mi- 
nistre plenipotentiaire a Bruxelles. 

Son Altesse Royale le Grand Due de Luxem- 
bourg, Due de Nassau : Son Excellence M. 
Eyschen, Son Ministre d'Etat, President du 
Gouvernement Grand-Ducal. 

Son Altesse le Prince de Montenegro : Son 
Excellence M. le Conseiller Prive Actuel de 
Staal, Ambassadeur de Russie a Londres. 

Sa Majeste la Reine des Pays-Bas: M. le 
Jonkheer A. P. C. van Karnebeek, Ancien 
Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, Membre de 
la Seconde Chambre des litats Generaux. M. 
le General J. C. C. den Beer Poortugael, 
Ancien Ministre de la Guerre, Membre du 
Conseil d'Etat. M. T. M. C. Asser, Membre 
du Conseil d'etat. M. E. N. Rahusen, 
Membre de la Premiere Chambre des Etats 
Generaux. 

Sa Majeste Impe>iale le Schah de Perse: 
Son Aide de Camp General Mirza Riza Khan, 
Arfa-ud-Dovleh, Son Envoye extraordinaire 
et Ministre plenipotentiaire a St. Petersbourg 
et a Stockholm. 

Sa Majeste le Roi de Portugal et des Al- 
garves, etc.: M. le Comte de Macedo, Pair du 
Royaume, Ancien Ministre de la Marine et 
des Colonies, Son Envoye extraordinaire et 
Ministre plenipotentiaire a Madrid. M. d'Or- 
nellas et Vasconcellos, Pair du Royaume, Son 
Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre pleni- 
potentiaire a St. Petersbourg. M. le Comte 
de Selir, Son Envoye extraordinaire et Mi- 
nistre plenipotentiaire a la Haye. 

Sa Majeste le Roi de Roumanie : M. Alex- 
andre Beldiman, Son Envoye extraordinaire 
et Ministre plenipotentiaire a Berlin. M. Jean 
N. Papiniu, Son Envoye extraordinaire et 
Ministre plenipotentiaire a la Haye. 

Sa Majeste l'Empereur de Toutes les 
Russies: Son Excellence M. le Conseiller 
Prive Actuel de Staal, Son Ambassadeur a 
Londres. M. de Martens, Membre Permanent 



145 



of the Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 
His Privy Councillor ; Mr. de Basily, His 
Councillor of State, Chamberlain, Director of 
the First Department of the Imperial Minis- 
try for Foreign Affairs. 

His' Majesty the King of Servia : Mr. Miya- 
tovitch, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minis- 
ter Plenipotentiary at London and at The 
Hague. 

His Majesty the King of Siam : M. Phya 
Suriya Nuvatr, His Envoy Extraodinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg 
and at Paris ; M. Phya Visuddha Suriyasakti, 
His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- 
potentiary at The Hague and at London. 

His Majesty the King of Sweden and Nor- 
way : the Baron de Bildt, His Envoy Extraor- 
dinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Rome. 

His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans : 
His Excellency Turkhan Pasha, former Minis- 
ter of Foreign Affairs, Member of His 
Council of State ; Noury Bey, Secretary-Gen- 
eral in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria : 
Dr. Dimitri Standoff, Diplomatic Agent at 
St. Petersburg; Major Christo Hessaptchieff, 
Military Attache at Belgrade. 

Who, after communication of their full 
powers, found in good and due form, have 
agreed on the following : — 



du Conseil du Ministere Imperial des Affaires 
Strange res, Son Conseiller Prive. Son Con- 
seiller d'Etat Actuel de Basily, Chambellan, 
Directeur du Premier Departement du Minis- 
tere Imperial des Affaires Etrangeres. 

Sa Majeste le Roi de Serbie : M. Miya- 
tovitch, Son Envoye extraordinaire et Minis- 
tre plenipotentiaire a Londres et a la Haye. 

Sa Majeste le Roi de Siam : M. Phya 
Suriya Nuvatr, Son Envoye extraordinaire et 
Ministre plenipotentiaire a St. Petersbourg 
et a Paris. M. Phya Visuddha Suriyasakti, 
Son Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre pleni- 
potentiaire a la Haye et a Londres. 

Sa Majeste le Roi de Suede et de Norvege : 
M. le Baron de Bildt, Son Envoye extraordi- 
naire et Ministre plenipotentiaire a Rome. 

Sa Majeste l'Empereur des Ottomans : Son 
Excellence Turkhan-Pacha, Ancien Ministre 
des Affaires Etrangeres, Membre de Son 
Conseil d'Etat. Noury Bey, Secretaire-Gen- 
eral au Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres. 

Son Altesse Royale le Prince de Bulgarie : 
M. le Dr. Dimitri Stancioff, Agent Diploma- 
tique a St. Petersbourg. M. le Major Christo 
Hessaptchieff, Attache Militaire a Belgrade. 

Lesquels, apres s'etre communique leurs 
pleins pouvoirs, trouves en bonne et due 
forme, sont convenus de ce qui suit : 



Article I. 

The High Contracting Parties shall issue 
instructions to their armed land forces, which 
shall be in conformity with the " Regulations 
respecting the Laws and Customs of Wai on 
Land " annexed to the present Convention. 



Article 1. 

Les Hautes Parties contractantes donneront 
a leurs forces armees de terre des instructions 
qui seront conformes au Reglement concerncuit 
les lois et coutumes de la guerre sur terre, annexe 
a la presente Convention. 



Article II. 

The provisions contained in the Regulations 
mentioned in Article I are only binding on 
the Contracting Powers, in case of war be- 
tween two or more of them. 

These provisions shall cease to be binding 
from the time when, in a war between Con- 
tracting Powers, a non-Contracting Power 
joins one of the belligerents. 

Article III. 

The present Convention shall be ratified as 
speedily as possible. 

The ratifications shall be deposited at the 
Hague. 

A procts-verbal shall be drawn up record- 
ing the receipt of each ratification, and a 
copy, duly certified, shall be sent through 
the diplomatic channel, to all the Contracting 
Powers. 



Article 2. 

Les dispositions contenues dans le Regle- 
ment vise a Particle premier ne sont obliga- 
toires que pour les Puissances contractantes, 
en cas de guerre entre deux ou plusieurs 
d'entre elles. 

Ces dispositions cesseront d'etre obligatoires 
du moment ou, dans une guerre cut re do 
Puissances contractantes, une Puissance non 
(ontractante se joindrait a l'un des belli^- 
e rants. 

Article 3. 

La presente Convention sera ratifiee dans 
le plus bref delai possible. 

Les ratifications seront dSposees a la Haye. 

II sera dresse du depot de chaque ratifica- 
tion un proces-verbal, dont une copie, cer- 
tifiee conformo, sera remise par la voje diplo- 
matique a toutes les Puissances contractantes. 



20681- 



-10 



146 



Article IV. 

Non-Signatory Powers are allowed to ad- 
here to the present Convention. 

For this purpose they must make their ad- 
hesion known to the Contracting Powers by 
means of a written notification, addressed to 
the Netherland Government, and by it com- 
municated to all the other Contracting Powers. 

Article V. 

In the event of one of the High Contract- 
ing Parties denouncing the present Conven- 
tion, such denunciation would not take effect 
until a year after the written notification 
made to the Netherland Government, and by 
it at once communicated to all the other Con- 
tracting Powers. 

This denunciation shall affect only the noti- 
fying Power. 

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have 
signed the present Convention and affixed 
their seals thereto. 

Done at the Hague the 29th July, 1899, in 
a single copy, which shall be kept in the 
archives of the Netherland Government, and 
copies of which, duly certified, shall be deliv- 
ered to the Contracting Powers through the 
diplomatic channel. 

For Germany : 
(Signed) Munster Derneburg. 

For Austria-Hungary : 
(Signed) Welsersiieimb. 
(Signed) Okolicsanyi. 

For Belgium : 
(Signed) A. Beernaert. 
(Signed) Cte. de Grelle Rogier. 
(Signed) Chr. Descamps. 

For Denmark : 
(Signed) F. Bille. 

For Spain : 
(Signed) El Duque de Tetuan. 
(Signed) W. R. de Villa Urrutia. 
(Signed) Arturo de Baguer. 

For the United States of America: 
(Signed) Stanford Newel. 

For the United Mexican States : 
(Signed) M. de Mier. 
(Signed) J. Zenil. 

For France : 
(Signed) Leon Bourgeois. 
(Signed) G. Bihourd. 
(Signed) d'Estournelles de Constant. 

For Great Britain and Ireland : 
(Signed ) PattncBFOTE. 
(Signed) Henry Howard. 

For Greece : 
i Signed) N. Delyanni. 



Article 4. 

Les Puissances non signataires sont admises 
a adherer a la presente Convention. 

Elles auront, a cet effet, a faire connaitre 
leur adhesion aux Puissances contractantes, 
au moyen d'une notification ecrite, adresse an 
Gouvernemeut des Pays-Bas et communiquee 
par celui-ci a toutes les autres Puissances con- 
tractantes. 

Article 5. 

S'il arrivait qu'une des Hautes Parties con- 
tractantes denoncat la presente Convention, 
cette denonciation ne produirait ses effets 
qu'un an apres la notification faite par ecrit 
au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et communi- 
quee immediatemeut par celui-ci a toutes les 
autres Puissances contractantes. 

Cette denonciation ne produira ses effets qu'a 
l'egard de la Puissance qui 1'aura notifiee. 

En foi de quoi, les plenipotentiaires out 
signe la presente Convention et l'ont revetue 
de leurs cachets. 

Fait a la Haye, le vingt neuf juillet mil huit 
cent quatre-vingt dix-neuf, en un seul exem- 
plaire qui restera depose dans les archives du 
Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et dont des copies, 
certifiees conformes, seront remises par la voei 
diplomatique aux Puissances contractantes. 

Pour l'Allemagne : 
(l. s.) Munster Derneburg. 

Pour 1'Autriche-Hongrie : 
(l. s.) Welsersheimb. 
(l. s.) Okolicsanyi. 

Pour la Belgique : 
(l. s.) A. Beernaert. 
(l. s.) Cte. de Grelle Rogier. 
(l. s.) Chr. Descamps. 

Pour le Danemark : 
(l. s.) F. Bille. 

Pour l'Espagne : 
(l. s.) El Duque De Tetuan. 
(l. s.) W. R. De Villa Urrutia. 
(l. s.) Arturo de Baguer. 

Pour les Etats-Unis d'Amerique : 

(l. s.) Stanford Newel. 

Pour les Etats-Unis Mexicains : 
(l. 1 s.) M. de Mier. 
(l. s.) J. Zenil. 

Pour la Fiance : 
(l. s.) Leon Bourgeois. 
(l. s.) G. Bihourd. 
(l. s.) D'Estournelles de Constant. 

Pour la Grande Bretagne et 1'Irlande: 
(l. s.) Pauncefote. 
(l. s.) Henry Howard. 

Pour la Grece : 
(l. s.) N. Delyanni. 



147 



For Italy : 
(Signed) Nigra. 
(Signed) A. Zannini. 
(Signed) G. Pompilj. 

For Japan : 
(Signed) I. Motono. 

For Luxemburg : 
(Signed) Eyschen. 

For Montenegro : 
(Signed) Staal. 

For the Netherlands : 
(Signed) v. Karnebeek. 
(Signed) den Beer Poortugael. 
(Signed) T. M. C. Asser. 
(Signed) E. N. Rahusen. 

For Persia : 
(Signed) Mirza Riza Khan, Arfa-ud-Dovleh. 
For Portugal : 

(Signed) Conde »e Macedo. 

(Signed) Agostinho d'Ornellas de Vascon- 

CELLOS. 

(Signed) Conde de Selir. 

For Roumania : 
(Sigped) A. Beldiman. 

(Signed) J. N. Papiniu. 

For Russia : 
(Signed) Staal. 
(Signed) Martens. 
(Signed) A. Basily. 

For Servia : 
(Signed) Chedo Miyatovitch. 

For Si am : 
(Signed) Phya Suria Nuvatr. 
(Signed) Visuddha. 

For the United Kingdoms of Sweden and 
Norway : 
(Signed) Bildt. 

For Turkey : 
(Signed) Turkhan. 
(Signed) Mehemed Noury. 

For Bulgaria : 
(Signed) D. Stancioff. 
(Signed) Major Hessaptchieff. 



Pour l'ltalie: 
(l. s.) Nigra. 
(l. s.) A. Zannini. 
(l. s.) G. Pompilj. 

Pour le Japon : 
(l. s.) I. Motono. 

Pour le Luxembourg : 
(l. s.) Eyschen. 

Pour le Montenegro : 
(l. s.) Staal. 

Pour les Pays-Bas : 
(l. s.) v. Karnebeek. 
(l. s.) den Beer Poortugael. 
(l. s.) T. M. C. Asser. 
(l. s.) E. N. Rahusen. 

Pour la Perse : 
(l. s.) Mirza Riza Khan, Arva-ud-Dovleh. 
Pour le Portugal : 

(l. s.) Conde de Macedo. 

(l. s.) Agostinho d'Ornellas de Vas con- 

cellos. 
(l. s.) Conde de Selir. 

Pour la Roumanie : 
(l. s.) A. Beldiman. 
(l. s.) J. N. Papiniu. 

Pour la Russie : 
(l. s.) Staal. 
(l. s.) Martens, 
(l. s.) A. Basily. 

Pour la Serbie : 
(l. s.) Chedo Miyatovitch. 

Pour le Siam : 
(l. s.) Phya Suria Nuvatr. 
(l. s.) Visuddha. 

Pour les Royaumes Unis de Suede et de 
Norvege : 
(l. s.) Bildt. 

Pour la Turquie : 
(l. s.) Turkhan. 
(l. s.) Mehemed Noury. 

Pour la Bulgarie : 
(l. s.) D. Stancioff. 
(l. s.) Major Hessaptchieff. 

Certifie pour copie conforme, 

Le Secretaire General du Dt'partement 
des Affaires Etrangeres, 

L. II. RUYSSKNAF.RZ. 

La Haye, le SI Janvier 1900. 



148 



[Translation.] 
ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION. 



ANNEXE. 



REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUS- EEGLEMENT CONCERNANT LES LOIS ET COUTU- 
TOMS OF WAR ON LAND. MES DE LA GUERRE SUR TERRE. 

SECTION I.— On Belligerents. 

Chapter I. — On the Qualifications of Bellig- 
erents. 



Article I. 

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply 
not only to armies, but also to militia and 
' volunteer corps, fulfilling the following condi- 
tions: 

1. To be commanded by a person responsible 
for his subordinates; 

2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recog- 
nizable at a distance; 

3. To carry arms openly; and 

4. To conduct their operations in accord- 
ance with the laws and customs of war. 

In countries where militia or volunteer corps 
constitute the army, or form part of it, they 
are included under the denomination "army." 

Article II. 

The population of a territory which has not 
been occupied who, on the enemy's approach, 
spontaneously take up arms to resist the 
invading troops without having time to organ- 
ize themselves in accordance with Article 1, 
shall be regarded a belligerent, if they respect 
the laws and customs of war. 

Article III. 



SECTION I.— Des Belligerants. 
Chapitre I. — De la qualite de belligerant. 

Article 1. 

Les lois, les droits et les devoirs de la 

guerre ne s'appliquent pas seulement a 

l'armee, mais encore aux milices et aux corps 

de volontaires reunissant les conditions sui- 
vantes: 

1. d'avoir a leur tete une personne respon- 
sable pour ses subordonnes; 

2. d'avoir un signe distinctif fixe et recon- 
naissable a distance; 

3. de porter les amies ouvertement et 

4. de se conformer dans leurs operations 
aux lois et coutumes de la guerre. 

Dans les pays oil les milices ou des corps de 
volontaires constituent l'armee ou en font 
partie, ils sout compris sous la denomination 
d'armie. 

Article 2. 

La population d'un territoire non occupe 
qui, a l'approche de l'ennemi, prend spontane- 
ment les armes pour combattre les troupes 
d'invasion sans avoir eu le temps de s'organiser 
conformement a l'article premier, sera con- 
sideree comme belligerante si elle respecte les 
lois et coutumes de la guerre. 

Article 3. 



The armed forces of the belligerent parties Les forces armees des parties belligerantes 
may consist of combatants and noncombat- peuventse composer de combattants etde non- 
ants. In case of capture by the enemy both combattants. En casde capture par l'ennemi, 
have a right to be treated as prisoners of war. les uns et les autres ont droit au traitement 

des prisonniers de guerre. 



Chapter II. — On Prisoners of War. 
Article IV. 

Prisoners of war are in the power of the hos- 
tile Government, but not in that of the indi- 
viduals or corps who captured them. 

They must be humanely treated. 

All their personal belongings, except arms, 
horses, and military papers, remain their prop- 
erty. 

Article V. 

Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, 
fortress, camp, or any other locality, and 
bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits ; 
but they can only be confined as an indispen- 
sable measure of safety. 



Chapitre II. — Des prisonniers de guerre. 
Article 4. 

Les prisonniers de guerre sont au pouvoir 
du Gouvernement ennemi, mais non des in- 
dividus ou des corps qui les ont captures. 

Ils doivent etre traites avec humanity. 

Tout ce qui leur appartient personnelle- 
ment, excepte les amies, les chevaux et les 
papiers militaires, reste leur propriete. 

Article 5. 

Les prisonniers de guerre peuvent etre assu- 
jettis a l'internement dans une ville, forte- 
resse, camp ou localite quelconque, avec 
obligation de ne pas s'en eloigner au dela de 
certaines limites determinees ; mais ils ne 
peuvent etre enferm&s que par mesure de 
sflrete indispensable. 



149 



Article VI. 

The State may utilize the labor of prisoners 
of war according to their rank and aptitude. 
Their tasks shall not be excessive, and shall 
have nothing to do with the military opera- 
tions. 

Prisoners may be authorized to work for 
the Public Service, for private persons, or on 
their own account. 

Work done for the State shall be paid for 
according to the tariffs in force for soldiers 
of the national army employed on similar 
tasks. 

When the work is for other branches of the 
Public Service or for private persons, the con- 
ditions shall be settled in agreement with the 
military authorities. 

The wages of the prisoners shall go towards 
improving their position, and the balance 
shall be paid them at the time of their release, 
after deducting the cost of their maintenance. 

Article VII. 

The Government into whose hands prisoners 
of war have fallen is bound to maintain them. 

Failing a special agreement between the 
belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated 
as regards food, quarters, and clothing, on the 
same footing as the troops of the Government 
which has captured them. 

Article VIII. 

Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, 
regulations, and orders in force in the army 
of the State into whose hands they have fallen. 
Any act of insubordination warrants the 
adoption, as regards them, of such measures 
of severity as may be necessary. 

Escaped prisoners, recaptured before they 
have succeeded in rejoining their army, or 
before quitting the territory occupied by the 
army that captured them, are liable to disci- 
plinary punishment. 

Prisoners who, after succeeding in escaping 
are again taken prisoners, are not liable to any 
punishment for the previous flight. 

Article IX. 

Every prisoner of war, if questioned, is 
bound to declare his true name and rank, and 
if he disregards this rule, he is liable to a <ur- 
tailment of the advantages accorded to the 
prisoners of war of his class. 



Article X. 

Prisoners of war may be set at liberty on 
parole if the laws of their country authorize 



Article 6. 

L'Etat peut employer, comme travailleuis. 
les prisonniers de guerre, selon leur grade et 
leurs aptitudes. Ces travaux ne seront pas 
excessifs et n'auront aucun rapport avec les 
operations de la guerre. 

Les prisonniers peuvent etre autorises a 
travailler pour le compte d'administrations 
publiques ou de particuliers, ou pour leur 
propre compte. 

Les travaux faits pour l'Etat sont payes 
d'apres les tarifsen vigueur pour les militaires 
de 1'armee nationale executant les memes 
travaux. 

Lorsque les travaux ont lieu pour le compte 
d'autres administrations publiques ou pour dee 
particuliers, les conditions en sont reglecs 
d'accord avec 1'autorite militaire. 

Le salaire des prisonniers contribuera a 
adoucir leur position, et le surplus leur sera 
compte au moment de leur liberation, sauf 
defalcation des frais d'entretien. 

Article 7. 

Le Gouvernement au pouvoir duquel so 
trouvent les prisonniers de guerre est charge 
de leur entretien. 

A defaut d'une entente speciale entre les 
belligerants, les prisonniers de guerre seront 
traites, pour la nourriture, le couchage et 
rhabillement, sur le meme pied que les troupes 
du Gouvernement qui les aura captures. 

Article 8. 

Les prisonniers de guerre seront sounds aux 
lois, regleinents, et ordres en vigueur dans 
1'armee de l'Etat au pouvoir duquel ils se 
trouvent. Tout acte d'insubordination auto- 
rise, a leur egard, les mesures de rigueur 
necessaires. 

Les prisonniers evades, qui seraient repris 
avantd'avoir pu rejoindre leurarmee ou avant 
de quitter le territoire occupe par 1'armee qui 
les aura captures, sont passibles de peinesdis- 
ciplinaires. 

Les prisonniers qui, apres avoir reussi a 
s'evader, sont de nouveau faits prisonniers. 
ne sont passibles d'aucune peine pour la fuite 
anterieure. 

Article 9. 

Chaque prisonnier de guerre est tenu de 
declarer, s'il est interroge a ce BUJet, ses \eri- 
tablea Dome et grade et, dans le cas od il en 
freindrait cette regie, il s'exposerait a une 
restriction des avantages accordesaux prison- 
niers de guerre de sa categorie. 

Article 10. 

Les prisonniers de guerre peuvent etre mis 
in liberte sur parole, si les lois de leur pays 



150 



it, and, in such a case, Jhey are bound, on 
their personal honour, scrupulously to fulfill, 
both as regards their own Government and 
tlic Government by whom they were made 
prisoners, the engagements they have con- 
tracted. 

In such cases, their own Government shall 
not require of nor accept from them any serv- 
ice incompatible with the parole given. 

Article XI. 

A prisoner of war can not be forced to accept 
his liberty on parole; similarly the hostile 
Government is not obliged to assent to the 
prisoner's request to be set at liberty on parole. 



Article XII. 

Any prisoner of war, who is liberated on 
parole and recaptured, bearing arms against 
the Government to whom he had pledged his 
honor, or against the allies of that Govern- 
ment, forfeits his right to be treated as a 
prisoner of war, and can be brought before 
the Courts. 

Article XIII. 

Individuals who follow an army without 
directly belonging to it, such as newspaper 
correspondents and reporters, sutlers, con- 
tractors, who fall into the enemy's hands, and 
whom the latter think fit to detain, have a 
right to be treated as prisoners of war, pro- 
vided they can produce a certificate from the 
military authorities of the army they were 
accompanying. 

Article XIV. 

A Bureau for information relative to pris- 
oners of war is instituted, on the commence- 
ment of hostilities, in each of the belligerent 
States, and, when necessary, in the neutral 
countries on whose territory belligerents have 
been received. This Bureau is intended to 
answer all inquiries about prisoners of war, 
and is furnished by the various services con- 
cerned with all the necessary information to 
enable it to keep an individual return for each 
prisoner of war. It is kept informed of intern- 
ments and changes, as well as of admissions 
into hospital and deaths. 

It is also the duty of the Information Bu- 
reau to receive and collect all objects of per- 
sonal use, valuables, letters, &c, found on 
the battlefields or left by prisoners who have 
died in hospital or ambulance, and to transmit 
them to those interested. 



les y autorisent, et, en pareil cas, ils sunt 
obliges, sous la garantie de leur honneur 
personnel, de remplir scrupuleusement, tant 
vis-a-vis de leur propre Gouvernement que 
vis-a-vis de celui qui les a faits prison niers, 
les engagements qu'ils auraient contracted. 

Dans le mSme cas, leur propre Gouverne- 
ment est tenu de n'exiger ni accepter d'eux 
aucun service coutraire a la parole donnee. 

Article 11. 

Un prisonnier de guerre ne peut etre con- 
traint d'accepter sa liberte sur parole; de 
meme le Gouvernement ennemi n'est pas 
oblige d'acceder a la demande du prisonnier 
reclamant sa mise en liberte sur parole. 

Article 12. 

Tout prisonnier de guerre, libere sur parole 
et repris portant les armes centre le Gouverne- 
ment envers lequel il s'etait engage d'honueur, 
ou contre les allies de celui-ci, perd le droit au 
traitement des prisonniers de guerre et peut 
etre traduit devant les tribunaux. 



Article 13. 

Les individus qui suivent une armee sans en 
faire directement .partie, tels que les corre- 
spondants et les reporters de journaux, les 
vivandiers, les fournisseurs, qui tombent au 
pouvoir de l'ennemi et que celui-ci juge utile 
de detenir, ont droit au traitement des prison- 
niers de guerre, a condition qu'ils soient munis 
d'une legitimation de l'autorite militaire de 
l'armee qu'ils accompagnaient. 

Article 14. 

II est constitue, des le debut des hostilites, 
dans chacun des Etats bellige rants et, le cas 
echeant, dans les pays neutres qui auront 
recueilli des belligerants sur leur territoire, 
un Bureau de renseignements sur les prison- 
niers de guerre. Ce bureau, charge de r6- 
pondre a toutes les demandes qui les con- 
cernent, recoit des divers services compe tents 
toutes les indications necessaires pour lui 
permettre d'etablir une fiche individuelle pour 
chaque prisonnier de guerre. II est tenu au 
courant des internements et des mutations, 
ainsi que des entrees dans les hopitaux et des 
deces. 

Le Bureau de renseignements est egalement 
charge de recueillir et de centraliser tous les 
objets d'un usage personnel, valeurs, lettres, 
etc., qui seront trouves sur les champs de 
bataille ou delaisses par des prisonniers dece 
des dans les hopitaux et ambulances, et de les 
transmettre aux interesses. 



151 



Article XV. 

Relief Societies for prisoners of war, which 
are regularly constituted in accordance with 
the law of the country with the object of 
serving as the intermediary for charity, shall 
receive from the belligerents for themselves 
and their duly accredited agents every facility, 
within the bounds of military requirements 
and Administrative Regulations, for the effect- 
ive accomplishment of their humane task. 
Delegates of these Societies may be admitted 
to the places of internment for the distribution 
of relief, as also to the halting places of re- 
patriated prisoners, if furnished with a per- 
sonal permit by the military authorities, and 
on giving an engagement in writing to comply 
with all their Regulations for order and police. 

Article XVI. 

The Information Bureau shall have the 
privilege of free postage. Letters, money 
orders, and valuables, as well as postal parcels 
destined for the prisoners of war or dispatched 
by them, shall be free of all postal duties 
both in the countries of origin and destina- 
tion, as well as in those they pass through. 

Gifts and relief in kind for prisoners of war 
shall be admitted free of all duties of entry 
and others, as well as of payments for carriage 
by the Government railways. 



Article XVII. 



Article 15. 

• 
Les societes de secours pour les prisonniers 

de guerre, reguliereinent constitutes selon la 
loi de leur pays et ayant pour objet d'etre 
les intermediaires de Taction charitable, it- 
cevront, de la part des belligerents, pour elles 
et pour leurs agents dument accredites, toute 
facilite, dans les limites tracees par les neces- 
sities militaires et les regies administratives, 
pour accomplir eflicacenient leur taehc d'hu- 
nianite. Les delegues de ces societes pour- 
ront etre admis a distribuer des secours dans 
les depots d'internement, ainsi qu'aiix lieux 
d'etape des prisonniers rapatries, moyennant 
une permission personnelle delivree par l'au- 
torite militaire, et en prenant l'engagement 
par ecrit de se soumettre a toutes les mesures 
d'ordre et de police que celle-ci prescrirait. 

Article 16. 

Les Bureaux de renseignements jouissenl 

de la franchise de port. Les lettres, mandate 
et articles d'argent, ainsi que les colis postaux 
destines aux prisonniers de guerre on expedi6s 
par eux, seront affranchis de toutes taxes 
postales, aussi bien dans les pays d'origine et 
de destination que dans les pays intermedi- 
aires. 

Les dons et secours en nature destines aux 
prisonniers de guerre seront admis en fran- 
chise de tous droits d'entree et autres, ainsi 
que des taxes de transport sur les chemins de 
fer exploites par l'Etat. 

Article 17. 



Officers taken prisoners may receive, if Les officiers prisonniers pourront recevoir 
necessary, the full pay allowed them in this le complement, s'il y a lieu, de la solde qui 
position by their country's regulations, the leur est attribuee dans cette situation paries 
amount to be repaid by their Government. reglements de leur pays, a charge de rem- 

boursement par leur Gouvernement. 

Article is. 

Toute latitude est laissee aux prisonniers 

de guerre pour l'exercice de leur religion, 
y compris rassistanceaux offices de leurculte, 
a la seule condition de se conformer aux 

tor order and police issued by the military mesures d'ordre et de police prescritea par 

authorities. Tautorite militaire. 



Article XVIII. 

Prisoners of war shall enjoy every latitude 
in the exercise of their religion, including 
attendance at their own church services, pro- 
vided only they comply with the regulations 



Article XIX. 

The wills of prisoners of war are received 
or drawn up on the same conditions as for 
soldiers of the National Army. 

The same rules shall be observed regard- 
ing death certificates, as well as for the burial 
of prisoners of war, due regard being paid to 
their grade and rank. 



Article 19. 

Les testaments des prisonniers de guerre 
sont recus ou dresses dans les memes con- 
ditions que pour les militaires de Fannce 
uationale. 

(>n suivra egalement les memes regies en 

ce qui concerne les pieces relatives a la con - 

statation des d6ces, ainsi que pour I'inhuma- 

tion des prisonniers de guerre, en tenant 

ompte de leur* grade et de leur ran^ 



152 



Article XX. 



Article 20. 



After the conclusion of peace, the repatria- Apres la conclusion de la paix, le rapatric- 
tion of prisoners of war shall fake place as ment des prisonniers de guerre s'effectuera 
speedily as possible. dans le plus bref delai possible 



Chapter III. — On the Sick and Wounded. 

Article XXI. 

The obligations of belligerents with regard 
to the sick and wounded are governed by the 
Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864, 
subject to any modifications which may be 
introduced into it. 



Chapitre III. — Desmalades et des bless 's. 

Article 21. 

Les obligations des belligerants concernant 
le service des malades et des blesses sont 
regies par la Convention de Geneve du 22 
aofit 1864, sauf les modifications dont celle-ci 
pourra etre l'objet. 



SECTION II.— Ox Hostilities. 



SECTION II.— Des Hostilites. 



Chapter I. — On means of injuring the Enemy, Chapitre I. — Des moijens de nuire a Vennemi, 
Sieges, and Bombardments. des sieges et des bombardements. 



Article XXII. 



Article 22. 



The right of belligerents to adopt means of Les belligerants n'ont pas un droit illimite 
injuring the enemy is not unlimited. quant au choix des moyens de nuire a 

l'ennenii. 
Article XXIII. Article 23. 



Besides the prohibitions provided by special 
conventions, it is especially prohibited — 
(a.) To employ poison or poisoned arms ; 

(b.) To kill or wound treacherously in- 
dividuals belonging to the hostile nation or 
army; 

(c. ) To kill or wound an enemy who, having 
laid down arms, or having no longer means 
of defence, has surrendered at discretion ; 

(d.) To declare that no quarter will be 
given; 

(e.) To employ arms, projectiles, or material 
of a nature to cause superfluous injury; 

(f.) To make improper use of a flag of 
truce, the national flag, or military ensigns 
and the enemy's uniform, as well as the dis- 
tinctive badges of the Geneva Convention; 

(g. ) To destroy or seize the enemy's proper- 
ty, unless such destruction or seizure be im- 
peratively demanded by the necessities of war. 



Article XXIA'. 



Outre les prohibitions etablies par des con- 
ventions speciales, il est notamment interdit : 

a. d'employer du poison ou des armes em-, 
poisonnees; 

b. de tuer ou de blesser par trahison des 
individus appurtenant a la nation ou a 1'armee 
ennemie; 

c. de tuer ou de blesser un ennemi qui, 
ayant mis bas les armes ou n'ayant plus les 
moyens de se defendre, s'est rendu a discretion ; 

d. de declarer qu'il ne sera pas fait de 
quartier; 

e. d'employer des armes, des projectiles ou 
des matieres propres a causer des niaux 
superflus; 

/. d'user indument du pavilion parlemen- 
taire, du pavilion national ou des insignes 
militaires et de l'uniforme de l'ennenii, ainsi 
que des signes distinctifs de la Convention de 
Geneve; 

g. de detruire ou de saisir des proprietes 
ennemies, sauf les cas ou ces destructions ou 
ces saisies seraient imperieusement com- 
mandees par les necessites de la guerre. 

Article 24. 



Buses of war and the employment of Les ruses de guerre et 1'emploi des moyens 
methods necessary to obtain information about necessaires pour se procurer des renseigne- 
the enemy and the country, are considered ments sur l'ennemi et suV le terrain sont 



allowable. 



cousideres comme licites 



Article XXV. 



Article 25. 



The attack or bombardment of towns, vil- II est interdit d'attaquer ou de bombarder 
lages, habitations or buildings which are not des villes, villages, habitations ou batiments 
defended, is prohibited. qui ne sont pas defendns. 



153 



Article XXVI. 



Article 2(3. 



The Commander of an attacking force, be- Le commandant des troupes assaillantes, 
fore commencing a bombardment, except in avant d'entreprendre le bombardement, el 
the case of an assault, should do all he can to sauf le cas d'attaque de vive force, devra fairc 
warn the authorities. tout ce qui depend de lui pour en avertir les 

autorites. 
Article XXVII. Article 27. 



In sieges and bombardments all necessary 
steps should be taken to spare, as far as possi- 
ble, edifices devoted to religion, art, science, 
and charity, hospitals and places where the 
sick and wounded are collected, provided they 
are not used at the same time for military 
purposes. 

The besieged should indicate these buildings 
or places by some particular and visible signs, 
which should previously be notified to the as- 
sailants. 

Article XXVIII. 

The pillage of a town or place, even when 
aken by assault, is prohibited. 



Dans les sieges et bombardements, tputes 
les mesures necessaires doivent Giro prises 
pour epargner, autant que possible, les edi- 
fices consacres aux cultes, aux arts, aux sci- 
ences et a la bienfaisance, les hopitaux et les 
lieux de rassemblement de malades et de 
blesses, a condition qu'ils ne soient pas em- 
ployes en meme temps a un but militaire. 

Le devoir des assieges est de designer ces 
edifices ou lieux de rassemblement par des 
signes visibles speciaux qui seront notifies 
d'avance a l'assiegeaut. 

Article 28. 

11 est interdit de livrer au pillage meme une 
ville ou localite prise d'assaut. 



Chapter II. — On Spies. 
Article XXIX. 

An individual can only be considered a spy 
if, acting clandestinely or on false pretences, 
he obtains, or seeks to obtain, information in 
the zone of operations of a belligerent, with 
the intention of communicating it to the hos- 
tile party. 

Thus, soldiers not in disguise who have pene- 
trated into the zone of operations of a hostile 
army to obtain information are not considered 
spies. Similarly, the following are not con- 
sidered spies : Soldiers or civilians carrying 
out their mission openly, charged with the de- 
livery of despatches destined either for their 
own army or for that of the enemy. To this 
class belong likewise the individuals sent in 
balloons to deliver despatches, and generally 
to maintain communication between the vari- 
ous parts of an army or a territory. 



Chapitke II. — Des espioit*. 
Article 29. 

Ne peut etre considere comme espion que 
l'individu qui, agissant clandestinement ou 
sous de faux pretextes, recueille ou cherche k 
recueillir des informations dans la zone d'oper- 
ations d'un belligerant, avec 1'intention de le* 
communiquer a la partie adverse. 

Ainsi les militaires non deguises qui out 
penetre dans la zone d'operations de l'armee 
ennemie, a 1'effet de recueillir des informa- 
tions, ne sont pas considered comme espions. 
De meme, ne sont pas considered comme es- 
pions : les militaires et les non-militaires, ac- 
complissantouvertementleur mission, charges 
de transmettre de depeches destinees soit a 
leur propre armee, soit k l'armee ennemie. 
A cette categoric appartiennent egalement les 
Individus envoyes en ballon pour transniettr<- 
les depeches, et, en general, pour entretenir 
les communications entre les diverses parties 
d'une armee ou d'un territoire. 



Article XXX. 



\ ki rcLE 30. 



A spy taken in the act can not be punished L'espion prissur le fait tie pourra Stre puni 
without previous trial. san^ jugement prealable. 



Article XXXI. 



Article 31. 



A spy who, after rejoining the army to L'espion qui, avant rejoint l'armee a la- 

which he belongs, is subsequently captured quelle il appartient, est capture plus tard par 

by the enemy, is treated as a prisoner of war, l'ennemi, est traite comme prisonnier de 

and incurs no responsibility for his previous guerre etn'encourtaucuneresponBabilltt pour 

acts of espionage. ses actes d'espionnage anterieurs. 



154 



CHAPTER III. — On Flays of Truce 

Article XXXI 

An individual is considered as bearing a flag 
of truce who is authorized by one of the bellig- 
erents to enter into communication with the 
other, and who carries a white flag. He has 
a right to inviolability, as well as the trum- 
peter, bugler, or drummer, the flag bearer, 
and the interpreter who may accompany him. 

Article XXXIII. 

The Chief to whom a flag of truce is sent is 
not obliged to receive it in all circumstances. 

He can take all steps necessary to prevent 
the envoy taking advantage of his mission to 
obtaiu information. 

In case of abuse, he has the right to detain 
the envoy temporarily. 

Article XXXIV. 



Chapitre III. — Des parlementairea. 

Article 32. 

Est eonsidere comine parlementaire l'indi- 
vidu autorise par l'undes belligerantsa entrer 
en pourparlers avec l'autre et se presentant 
avec le drapeau blanc. II a droit a l'invio- 
labilite ainsi que la trompette, clairon on tam- 
bour, le porte-drapeau et l'interprete qui I'ac- 
compagneraient. 

Article 33. 

Le Chef auquel un parlementaire est ex- 
pedite n'esj pas oblige de le recevoir en toutes 
circonstances. 

II peut prendre toutes les mesures neces- 
saires afin d'empecher le parlementaire de 
profiter de sa mission pour se renseiguer. 

II a le droit, en cas d'abus, de retenir tempo- 
rairement le parlementaire. 

Article 34. 



The envoy loses his rights of inviolability if Le parlementaire perd ses droits d'inviola- 
it is proved beyond doubt that he has taken bilite, s'il est prouve, d'une maniere positive 
advantage of his privileged position to pro- et irrecusable, qu'il a profite de sa position 
voke or commit an act of treachery. privilegiee pour provoquer ou commettre un 

acte de trahison. 



Chapter IV. — Ou Capitulation* 
Article XXXV. 

Capitulations agreed on between the Con- 
tracting Parties must be in accordance with 
the rules of military honour. 

When once settled, they must be scrupu- 
lously observed by both the parties. 

Chapter V. — Oh Armistices. 

Article XXXVI. 

An armistice suspends military operations 
by mutual agreement between the belligerent 
parties. If its duration is not fixed, the bel- 
ligerent parties can resume operations at any 
time, provided always the enemy is warned 
within the time agreed upon, in accordance 
with the terms of the armistice. 

Article XXXVII. 



Chapitre IV. — Des capitulation*. 
Article 35. 

Les capitulations arretees entre les parties 
coutractantes doivent tenir compte des regies 
de Thonneur militaire. 

Une fois fixees, elles doivent etre scru- 
puleusement observees par les deux parties. 

Chapitre V. — De Varmistice. 

Article 36. 

L'armistice suspend les operations de guerre 
par un accord mutuel des parties bellige rants. 
Si la duree n'en est pas determinee, les parties 
belligerantes peuvent reprendre en tout temps 
les operations, pourvu toutefois que rennemi 
soit avert! en temps convenu, conformement 
aux conditions de l'armistice. 

Article 37. 



An armistice may be general or local. The L'armistice peut etre general ou local. Le 

first suspends all military operations of the premier suspend partout les operations de 

belligerent States; the second, only those be- guerre des Etats belligerants; le second, seu- 

tween certain fractions of the belligerent lenient entre certaines fractions des armees 

armies and in a fixed radius. belligerantes et dans un rayon determine. 



Article XXXVIII. 



Article 38. 



An armistice must be notified officially, and L'armistice doit etre notifie officiellement 

in good time, to the competent authorities et en temps utile aux autorites competentes et 

and the troops. Hostilities are suspended aux troupes. Les hostiiites sont suspendues 

immediately after the notification, or at a jmmcdiatcmcnt apres la notification ou au 

fixed date. terme fixe. 



155 



Article XXXIX. 

It is for the Contracting Parties to settle, in 
the terms of the armistice, what communica- 
tions may be held, on the theatre of war, 
with the population and with each other. 

Article XL. 



Article 39. 

II depend des parties contractantesde fixer, 
dansl es clauses de l'armistice, les rapports qui 
pourraient avoir lieu, sur le theatre de la 
guerre, avec les populations et eutre elles. 

Article 40. 



Any serious violation of the armistice by Toute violation grave de l'armistice, par 

one of the parties gives the other party the l'une des parties, donue a l'autre le droit de 

right to denounce it, and even, in case of le denoncer et meme, en cas d'urgence, de 

urgency, to recommence hostilities at once. reprendre immediatement les hostilites. 



Article XLI. 

A violation of the terms of the armistice by 
private individuals acting on their own initia- 
tive, only confers the right of demanding the 
punishmentof the offenders, and, if necessary, 
indemnity for the losses sustained. 



Article 41. 

La violation des clauses de l'armistice, par 
des particuliers agissant de leur propre initia- 
tive, donne droit seulement a reclamer la 
punition des coupables et, s'il y a lieu, uue 
indemnite pour les pertes eprouvees. 



SECTION III. — On Military Authority 
over Hostile Territory. 

Article XLI1. 

Territory is considered occupied when it is 
actually placed under the authority of the 
hostile army. 

The occupation applies only to the territory 
where such authority is established, and in a 
position to assert itself. 

Article XLIII. 

The authority of the legitimate power having 
actually passed into the hands of the occupant, 
the latter shall take all steps in his power 
to re-establish and insure, as far as possible, 
public order and safety, while respecting, 
unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force 
in the country. 

Article XLIV. 



SECTION III.— De l'Autorite Militaire 
sur le Territoire de l'Etat Ennemi. 

Article 42. 

Un territoire est conside^re comme occupe 
lorsqu'il se trouve place de fait sous l'autorite 
de l'armee ennemie. 

L'occupation ne s'etend qu'aux territoires 
oil cette autorite est etablie et en mesure de 
s'exercer. 

Article 43. 

L'autorite du pouvoir legal ayant passe de 
fait entre les mains de 1'occupant, celui-ci 
prendra toutes les mesures qui dependent de 
lui en vue de retablir et d'assurer, autant 
qu'il est possible, l'ordre et la vie publics en 
respectant, sauf empechement absolu, les lois 
en vigueur dans le pays. 

Article 44. 



Any compulsion of the population of oc- II est iuterdit de forcer la population d'un 
cupied territory to take part in military opera- territoire occupe a prendre part aux opera- 
tions against its own country is prohibited. tions militaires COntre son propre pays. 



Article XLV. 



Article 45. 



Any pressure on the population of occupied II est interdit de contraihdre la population 
territory to take the oath to the hostile Power d'un territoire occupe a preter serment a la 
is prohibited. puissance ennemie 



Article XLVI. 



Article 46. 



Family honor and rights, individual lives L'honneur et les droits de la famille, la vie 
and private property, as well as religious con- des individus et la propriete privee, ainsi que 

les convictions religieusos et l'ezercice des 
cultes, doivent etre respectes. 



victions and liberty, must be respected. 
Private property can not be confiscated. 



Article XLVI I. 
Pillage is formally prohibited. 



La propriete privee ue peut pas etre con- 
iisquee. 

Article 47. 

Le pillage est formellement iuterdit. 



150 



Article XLVIII. 

If, in the territory occupied, the occupant 
collects the taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for 
the benefit of the State, he shall do it, as far 
as possible, in accordance with the rules in 
existence and the assessment in force, and will 
in consequence be bound to defray the expenses 
of the administration of the occupied territory 
on the same scale as that by which the legiti- 
mate Government was bouud. 



Article 48. 

Si l'occupant preleve, dans le territoire oc- 
cupe, les impdts, droits et peages etablis an 
profit de 1'Etat, il le fera, autant quepossible, 
d'apres les regies de l'assiette et de la repar- 
tition en vigueur, et il en resultera pour lui 
l'obligation de pourvoir aux frais de l'admin- 
istration du territoire occupe dans la mesurc 
oil le Gouvernement legal y etait tenu. 



Article XLIX. 



Article 49. 



If, besides the taxes mentioned iu the pre- Si, eu dehors des impots vises a l'article pre- 
ceding Article, the occupant levies other cedent, l'occupant preleve d'autres contribu- 
money taxes in the occupied territory, this tions eu argent dans le territoire occupe, ce ne 
can only be for military necessities or the pourra etre que pour les besoins de l'arniee ou 
administration of such territory. de l'administratiou de ce territoire. 



Article L. 

No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, 
can be inflicted ou the population ou account 
of the acts of individuals for which it can not 
be regarded as collectively responsible. 



Article LI. 

No tax shall be collected except under a 
written order and on the responsibility of a 
Commander-in-Chief. 

This collection shall only take place, as far as 
possible, in accordance with the rules in exist- 
ence and the assessment of taxes in force. 

For every payment a receipt shall be given 
to the taxpayer. 

Article LI I. 

Neither requisition in kind nor services can 
be demanded from communes or inhabitants 
except for the necessities of the army of occu- 
pation. They must be in proportion to the 
resources of the country, and of such a nature 
as not to involve the population iu the obliga- 
tion of taking part in military operations 
against their country. 

These requisitions and services shall only 
be demanded on the authority of the Com- 
mander in the locality occupied. 

The contributions in kind shall, as far as 
possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, 
their receipt shall be acknowledged. 

Article LIII. 

An army of occupation can only take posses- 
sion of the cash, funds, and property liable 
to requisition belonging strictly to the State, 
depots of arms, means of transport, stores and 
supplies, and, generally, all movable property 
of the State which may be used for military 
operations. 



Article 50. 

Aucune peine collective, pecuniaire ou autre, 
ne pourra etre edictee coutre les populations 
a raisou de faits individuels dont elles ne 
pourraient etre considerees comme solidaire- 
ment responsables. 

Article 51. 

Aucune contribution ne sera percue qu'en 
vertu d'un ordre ecritetsous la responsabilite 
d'un general en chef. 

II ne sera proeede, autant que possible, k 
cette perception que d'apres les regies de l'as- 
siette etdela repartition des impots eu vigueur. 

Pour toute contribution un recu seradelivre 
aux contribuables. 

Article 52. 

Des requisitions en nature et des services ne 
pourront etre reclames des communes ou des 
habitants, que pour les besoins de l'armee 
d'occupatiou. lis serout en rapport avec les 
ressources du pays et de telle nature qu'ils 
n'impliquent pas pour les populations l'obliga- 
tion de prendre part aux operations de la 
guerre contre leur patrie. 

Ces requisitions et ces services ne serout 
reclames qu'avec l'autorisation du comman- 
dant dans la localite occupee. 

Les prestations en nature seront, autant que 
possible, payees au comptant; sinon, elles 
seront constatees par des recus. 

Article 53. 

L'armee qui occupe un territoire ne pourra 
saisirque le numeraire, les fondset les valeurs 
exigibles appartenant en propre a l'Etat, les 
depots d'armes, moyens de transport, maga- 
sins et approvisionnements et, en general, 
toute propriete mobiliere de 1'htat de nature 
a servir aux operations de la guerre. 



157 



Railway plant, land telegraphs, telephones, 
steamers, and other ships, apart from cases 
governed by maritime law, as well as depots 
of arms and, generally, all kinds of war mate- 
rial, even though belonging to Companies or 
to private persons, are likewise material which 
may serve for military operations, but they 
must be restored at the conclusion of peace, and 
indemnities paid for them. N 



Article LIV. 



Le materiel des chemins de Ier, les tele- 
graphes de terre, les telephones, les bateaux 
a vapeur et autres navires, en dehors des cas 
regis par la loi maritime, de meme que les 
depots d'armes et en general toute espece de 
munitions de guerre, meme appartenant a des 
societes ou a despersonnes privees, sont egale- 
ment des moyens de nature a servir aux 
operations de la guerre, mais devront etre 
restitues, et les indemnites seront reglees a la 

paix. 

Article 54. 



The plant of railways coming from neutral Le materiel des chemins de fer provenant 

States, whether the property of those States, d'Etats neutres, qu'il appartienne a ces Etats 

or of Companies, or of private persons, shall ou a des Societes ou personnes privees, leur 

be sent back to them as soon as possible. sera renvoye aussitot que possible. 



Article LV. 

The occupying State shall only be regarded 
as administrator and usufructuary of the pub- 
lic buildings, real property, forests, and agri- 
cultural works belonging to the hostile State, 
and situated in the occupied country. It must 
protect the capital of these properties, and 
administer it according to the rules of usufruct. 

Article LVI. 

The property of the communes, that of re- 
ligious, charitable, and educational institu- 
tions, and those of arts and science, even 
when State property, shall be treated as pri- 
vate property. 

All seizure of, and destruction, or intentional 
damage done to such institutions, to historical 
monuments, works of art or science, is pro- 
hibited, and should be made the subject of 
proceedings. 



Article 55. 

L'Etat occupant ne se considerera que comme 
administrateur et usufruitier des edifices 
publics, immeubles, forets et exploitations 
agricoles appartenant a l'Etat ennemi et se 
trouvant dans le pays occupe. II devra sauve- 
garder le fond de ces proprietes et les admin- 
istrer conformement aux regies de l'usufruit. 

Article 5G. 

Les biens des communes, ceux des etablisse- 
ments consacres aux cultes, a la charite et a 
l'instruction, aux arts et aux sciences, meme 
appartenant a l'Etat, seront traites comme la 
propriete privee. 

Toute saisie, destruction ou degradation 
intentionnelle de semblables etablissements, 
de monuments historiques, d'ceuvres d'art et 
de science, est interdite et doit etre poursuivie. 



SECTION IV.— On the Internment of Bel- SECTION IV.— Des Belljgi' .rants Internes 

LIGERENTS AND THE CARE OF THE WOUNDED ET DES BLESSLS SoiGNKS CHEZ IKS XfITRES. 

in Neutral Countries. 



Article LVII. 

A neutral State which receives in its terri- 
tory troops belonging to the belligerent armies 
shall intern them, as far as possible, at a dis- 
tance from the theater of war. 

It can keep them in camps, and even confine 
them in fortresses or locations assigned for 
this purpose. 

It shall decide whether officers may be left 
at liberty on giving their parole that they will 
not leave the neutral territory without au- 
thorization. 

Article LVIII. 



Article 57. 

L'Etat neutre qui recoit sur son tcrritoire 
des troupes appartenant aux armees bellige- 
rantes, les internera, autant que possible, loin 
du theatre de la guerre. 

II pourrales garder dans des camps, et meme 
les enfermer dans les forteresses mi dans des 
lieux approprie~s a cet eflet. 

II decidera si les officiers peuvent etre laisses 
libres en prenant ['engagement sur parole de 
nc pas quitter !<■ territoire neutre sans autori- 
sation. 

Article 58. 



Failing a special Convention, the neutral A defaut de convention Bpficiale, I'Ktat 

State shall supply the interned with the food, neutre fournira aux Internet ]<■< rivres, les 

clothing, and relief required by humanity. habillements et les Becours commandos par 

l'humanite. 



158 



At the conclusion of peace, the expenses Bonification sera faite, a la paix, des frais 
caused hy the internment shall be made good, occasionnes par l'internement. 



Article LIX. 

A neutral State may authorize the passage 
through its territory of wounded or sick be- 
longing to the belligerent armies, on condition 
that the trains bringing them shall carry 
neither combatants nor war material. In 
such a case, the neutral State is bound to 
adopt such measures of safety and control as 
may be necessary for the purpose. 

Wounded and sick brought under these con- 
ditions into neutral territory by one of the bel- 
ligerents, and belonging to the hostile party, 
must be guarded by the neutral State, so as to 
insure their not taking part again in the mili- 
tary operations. The same duty shall devolve 
on the neutral State with regard to wounded 
or sick of the other army who may be com- 
mitted to its care. 

Article LX. 



Article 59. 

L'jfitat neutre pourra auto riser le passage sur 
son territoire des blesses ou malades apparte- 
nant aux armees belligerantes, sous la reserve 
que les trains qui les ameneront ne transporte- 
ront ni personnel ni materiel de guerre. En 
pareil cas, l'Etat neutre est tenu de prendre 
les mesures de surete et de controle necessaires 
a cet effet. 
Les blesses ou malades amenes dans ces condi- 
tions sur le territoire neutre par un des bel- 
ligerants, et qui appartiendraient a la partie 
adverse, devront etre gardes par l'Etat neutre, 
de maniere qu'ils ne puissent de nouveau 
prendre part aux operations de la guerre. 
Celui-ci aura les memes devoirs quant aux 
blesses ou malades de l'autre armee qui lui 
seraient confies. 

Article 60. 



The Geneva Convention applies to sick and La Convention de Geneve s'applique aux 
wounded interned in neutral territory. malades et aux blesses internes sur territoire 

neutre. 

And whereas the said Convention was duly ratified by the Government of the United States 
of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by the Govern- 
ments of the other Powers aforesaid, with the exception of Sweden and Norway, and Turkey; 

And whereas, in pursuance of the stipulations of Article III of the said Convention, the 
ratifications of the said Convention were deposited at The Hague on the 4th day of September, 
1900, by the Plenipotentiaries of the Governments of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, 
Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Koumania, 
Kussia, Siam, and Bulgaria ; on the 6th day of October, 1900, by the Plenipotentiary of the 
Government of Japan ; on the 16th day of October, 1900, by the Plenipotentiary of the Gov- 
ernment of Montenegro ; on the 4th day of April, 1901, by the Plenipotentiary of the Govern- 
ment of Greece ; on the 17th day of April, 1901, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of 
Mexico; on the 11th day of May, 1901, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Servia; 
on the 12th day of July, 1901, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Luxemburg, and 
on the 5th day of April, 1902, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of the United States 
of America : 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of 
America, have caused the said Convention to be made public, to the end that the same and 
every clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States anil 
the citizens thereof. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States 
to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington this eleventh day of April, in the year of our Lord one 
thousand nine hundred and two, and of the Independence of the United States the 



[seal.] 



one hundred and twenty-sixth. 



Theodore Roosevelt. 



By the President : 

David J. Hill, 

Acting Secretary of State. 



APPENDIX IV. 



CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CERTAIN 
POWERS FOR THE ADAPTATION TO MARITIME WARFARE OF THE PRINCI- 
PLES OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF AUGUST 22, 1864. 



Signed at The Hague July 29, 1899. 
Ratificatian advised by the Senate May U, 1900. 
Ratified by the President of the United States August 3, 1900. 
Ratification deposited with the Netherlands Government September U, 1900. 
'Proclaimed November 1, 1901. 



By the President of the United States of America. 

A PROCLAMATION. 

Whereas a Convention for the adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the principles of the 
Geneva Convention of August 22, 1864, was concluded and signed on July 29. 1899, by the 
Plenipotentiaries of the United States of America, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium. 
China, Denmark, Spain, Mexico, France, Great Britain and Ireland, Greece, Italy, Japan, 
Luxemburg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia, 
Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Bulgaria, the original of which ('(in- 
vention, in the French language, is word for word as follows: 

[Translation,] 

CONVENTION POTJR L' ADAPTATION A LA GUERRE CONVENTION FOR THE ADAPTATION TO MAlil- 
MARITIME DES PRINC1PES DE LA CONVEX- TIME WARFARE OF THE PRINCIPLES OP THE 

TION DE GEN.'.VE DU 22 AOUT 1864. GENEVA CONVENTION OF AUGUST 22, 1864. 



Sa Majeste FEmpereur d'Allemagne, Roi 
de Prusse; Sa Majeste l'Empereur d'Autriche, 
RoideBohenie etc. et Roi Apostolique de Hon- 
grie; Sa Majeste le Roi des Beiges; Sa Majeste 
l'Empereur de Chine; Sa Majeste le Roi de 
Danemark; Sa Majestu le Roi d'Espague eten 
Son Nom Sa Majeste la Reine-Regente du 
Royaume; le President des Etats-Unisd'Amer- 
ique; le President des Etats-Unis Mexicains; 
le President de la Republique Francaise; Sa 
Majeste la Reine du Royaume-Uni de la 
Grande Bretagne et d'lrlande, Imperatrice 
des Indes; Sa Majeste le Roi des Hellenes; Sa 
Majeste le Roi d'ltalie; Sa Majeste l'Empereur 
du Japon; Son Altesse Royale le Grand-Due 
de Luxembourg, Due de Nassau; Son Altesse 
le Prince le Montenegro; Sa Majeste la Reine 
des Pays-Bas; Sa Majeste Imperiale le Schah 
de Perse; Sa Majeste le Roi de Portugal et des 
Algarves etc.; Sa Majeste le Roi de Roumanie; 
Sa Majeste l'Empereur de Toutes les Russies; 



His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, Kin:: 
of Prussia; His Majesty the Emperor of Aus- 
tria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King 
of Hungary; His Majesty the King of the Bel- 
gians, His Majesty the Emperor of China: 
His Majesty the King of Denmark; His Ma- 
jesty the King of Spain ami in His Name Her 
Majesty the Queen Regent of. the Kingdom; 
the President of the United States of America; 
the President of the United Mexican States. 
the President of the French Republic; Her 
Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of 
Great Britain and Ireland, Empress Of India: 
His Majesty the King of the Hellenes: Hi- 
Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty the 
Emperor of Japan; His Royal Highness the 
Grand Duke of Luxemburg, Duke of Nassau: 
His Highness the Prince of Montenegro; Her 

Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; His 
Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Ma 
jesty the King of Portugal and of the Algan i -. 



(159) 



160 



Sa Majeste leRoi do Serbie; Sa Majeste le Roi 
de Siain; Sa Majeste le Roi de Suede et de 
Norvege; le Conseil Federal Suisse; Sa Ma- 
jeste l'Empereur des Ottomans et Son Altesse 
Etoyale le Prince de Bulgaria 



Egalement animes du desir de diminuer 
autaut qu'il depend d'eux les maux insepar- 
ables de la guerre et voulant dans ce but 
adapter a la guerre maritime les principes de 
la Convention de Geneve du 22 aoCitl864, ont 
resolu de conclure une Convention a cet effet; 

lis ont en consequence nomme pour Leurs 
Plenipotentiaires, savoir: 

Sa Majeste l'Empereur d'Allemagne, Roi 
de Prusse: Son Excellence le Comte de Mini- 
ster, Prince de Derneburg, Son Ambassadeur 
a Paris. 

Sa Majeste l'Empereur d'Autriche, Roi de 
Bohenie, etc. et Roi Apostolique de Hongrie: 
Son Excellence le Comte R. de Welsersheimb, 
Son Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plenipo- 
tentiaire. M. Alexandre Okolicsanyi d'Oko- 
licsna, Son Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre 
plenipotentiaire a la Haye. 

Sa Majeste le Roi des Beiges: Son Excel- 
lence M. Auguste Beernaert, Son Ministre 
d'Etat, President de la Chambre des Repre- 
sentants. M. le Comte De Grelle Rogier, Son 
Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre plenipoten- 
tiaire a la Haye. M. le Chevalier Descamps, 
Senateur. 

Sa Majeste l'Empereur de Chine: M. Yang 
Yii, Son Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre 
Plenipotentiaire a St. Petersbourg. 

Sa Majeste le Roi de Danemark: Son Cham- 
bellan Fr. E. de Bille, Son Envoye extraordi- 
naire et Ministre plenipotentiaire a Londres. 

Sa Majeste le Roi d'Espagneet en Son Nom, 
Sa Majeste la Reine-Regente du Royaume: 
Son Excellence le Due de Tetuan, Ancien Mi- 
nistre des Affaires Etrangeres. M. W. Ramirez 
de Villa Urrutia, Son Envoye extraordinaire 
et Minestre plenipotentiaire a Bruxelles. M. 
Arthur de Baguer, Son Envoye extraordinaire 
et Ministre plenipotentiaire a la Haye. 

Le President des E.tats-Unis d'Amerique: 
M. Stanford Newel, Envoye extraordinaire 
et Ministre plenipotentiaire a la Haye. 

Le President des Etats-Unis Mexicains: M. 
de Mier, Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre 
plenipotentiaire a Paris. M. Zenil, Ministre- 
Resident a Bruxelles. 

Le President de la Republique Franyaise: 
M. Leon Bourgeois, Ancien President du Con- 
seil, Ancien Ministre des Affaires Estrange res, 



etc.; His Majesty the King of Roumania; His 
Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias; Jlis 
Majesty the King of Servia; His Majesty the 
King of Siam; His Majesty the King of Swe- 
den and Norway; the Swiss Federal Council; 
His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans and 
His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria. 

Alike animated by the desire to diminish, 
as far as depends on them the evils insepar- 
able from warfare, and wishing with this ob- 
ject to adapt to maritime warfare the princi- 
ples of the Geneva Convention of the 22nd 
August, 1864, have decided to conclude a con- 
vention to this effect: 

They have, in consequence, appointed as 
their Plenipotentiaries, to wit: 
His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King 
of Prussia, His Excellency Count Munster, 
Prince of Derneburg, His Ambassador at 
Paris. 

His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King 
of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hun- 
gary: His Excellency Count R. de Welser- 
sheimb, His Ambassador Extraordiuary and 
Plenipotentiary; Mr. Alexander Okolicsanyi 
d'Okolicsna, His Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague. 

His Majestey the King of the Belgians: His 
Excellency Mr. Auguste Beernaert, His Min- 
ister of State, President of the Chamber of 
Deputies; Count de Grelle Rogier, His Envoy 
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary 
at the Hague; the Chevalier Descamps, Sena- 
tor. 

His Majesty the Emperor of China: Mr. 
Yang Yu, His Envoy Extraordinary and Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg. 

His Majesty the King of Denmark: His 
Chamberlain Fr. E. de Bille, His Envoy Ex- 
traordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at 
London. 

His Majesty the King of Spain and in His 
Name, Her Majesty the Queen Regent of the 
Kingdom: His Excellency the Duke of Tetuan, 
formerly Minister for Foreign Affairs; M. W. 
Ramirez de Villa Urrutia, His Envoy Extraor- 
dinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at 
Brussels; M. Arthur de Baguer, His Envoy 
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary 
at The Hague. 

The President of the United States of 
America: Mr. Stanford Newel, Envoy Ex- 
traordinary and minister Plenipotentiary at 
The Hague. 

The President of the United Mexican States: 
Mr. de Mier, Envoy Extraordinary and Minis- 
ter Plenipotentiary at Paris; Mr. Zenil, Minis- 
ter Resident at Brussels. 

The President of the French Republic: M. 
Leon Bourgeois, formerly President of the 
Council, ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mem- 



161 



Membre de la Chambre des Deputes. M. 
Georges Bihourd, Envoye extraordinaire et 
Ministre plenipotentiaire a la Haye. M. le 
Baron d'Estournelles de Constant, Ministre 
plenipotentiaire, Membre de la Chambre De- 
putes. 

Sa Majeste la Heine du Royaume Uni de la 
Grande Bretagne et d'Irlande, Imperatrice 
des Indes: Sir Henry Howard, Son Envoye 
extraordinaire et Ministre plenipotentiaire a 
la Haye. 

Sa Majeste la Roi des Hellenes: M. N. 
Delyanui, Ancien President du Conseil, An- 
cien Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, Son 
Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre plenipo- 
tentiaire a Paris. 

Sa Majeste le Roi d'ltalie: Son Excellence 
le Comte Nigra, Son Ambassadeur a Vienne, 
Senateur du Royaume. M. le Comte A. Zan- 
nini, Son Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre 
plenipotentiaire a la Haye. M. le Comman- 
deur Guido Pompilj, Depute au Parlement 
Italien. 

Sa Majeste PEmpereur du Japon: M. I. 
Motouo, Son Envoye extraordinaire et Mi- 
nistre plenipotentiare a Bruxelles. 

Son Altesse Royale le Grand Due de Lux- 
embourg, Due de Nassau: Son Excellence M. 
Eyschen, Son Ministre d'Etat, President du 
Gouvernement Grand-Ducal. 

Son Altesse le Prince de Montenegro: Son 
Excellence M. le Conseiller Prive Actuel de 
Staal, Ambassadeur de Russie a Londres. 

Sa Majeste la Reine des Pays-Bas: M. le 
Jonkbeer A. P. C. van Karnebeek, Ancien 
Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, Membre de 
la Seconde Chambre des Etats-Generaux. M. 
le General J. C. C. den Beer Poortugael, An- 
cien Ministre de la Guerre, Membre du Con- 
seil d'etat. M. T. M. C. Asser, Membre du 
Conseil d'Etat. M. E. N. Rahusen, Membre 
de la Premiere Chambre des Etats-Generaux. 

Sa Majeste Imperiale le Schah de Perse: 
Son Aide de Camp General Mirza Riza Khan, 
Arfa-ud-Dovleh, Son Envoye extraordinaire 
et Ministre plenipotentiaire a St. Petersbourg 
et a Stockholm. 

Sa Majeste le Roi de Portugal et des Algar- 
ves, etc.: M. le Comte de Macedo, Pair du 
Royaume, Ancien Ministre de la Marine et 
des Colonies, Son Envoye extraordinaire et 
Ministre plenipotentiaire a Madrid. M. d'Or- 
nellas et Vasconcellos, Pair du Royaume, Son 
Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre plenipo- 
tentiaire a St. Petersbourg. M. le Comte de 
Selir, Son Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre 
plenipotentiaire a la Haye. 

Sa Majeste le Roi de Roumanie: M. Alex- 
andre Beldiman, Son Euvoye extraordinaire 



ber of the Chamber of Deputies; M. Georges 
Bihourd, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary at The Hague; Baron d'Es- 
tournelles de Constant, Minister Plenipoten- 
tiary, Member of the Chamber of Deputies. 

Her Majesty the Queen of the United King- 
dom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress 
of India: Sir Henry Howard, Her Envoy Ex- 
traordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at 
The Hague. 

His Majesty the King of the Hellenes: Mr. 
N. Delyanni, formerly President of the 
Council, ex-Minister for Eoreign Affairs, His 
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo- 
tentiary at Paris. 

His Majesty the King of Italy: His Excel- 
lency Count Nigra, His Ambassador at 
Vienna, Senator of the Kingdom; Count A. 
Zannini, His Envoy Extraordinary and Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary at The Hague; Com- 
mander Guido Pompilj, Deputy in the Italian 
Parliament. 

His Majesty the Emperor of Japan: Mr. I. 
Motono, His Envoy Extraordinary and Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary at Brussels. 

His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of 
Luxemburg, Duke of Nassau: His Excel- 
lency Mr. Eyschen, His Minister of State, 
President of the Grand Ducal Government. 

His Highness the Prince of Montenegro: 
His Excellency Mr. de Staal, Privy Council- 
lor, Ambassador of Russia at London. 

Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands: 
Jonkbeer A. P. C. van Karnebeek, formerly 
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Member of the 
Second Chamber of the States General; Gen- 
eral J. C. C. den Beer Poortugael, formerly 
Minister of War, Member of the Council of 
State; Mr. T. M. C. Asser, Member of the 
Council of State; Mr. E. N. Rahuseu, Mem- 
ber of the First Chamber of the States 
General. 

His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia: 
His Aid-de-Camp General Mirza Riza Khan, 
Arfa-ud-Dovleh, His Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Peters- 
burg and Stockholm. 

His Majesty the King of Portugal and of 
the Algarves, etc.: Count Macedo, Peerofthe 
Kingdom, formerly Minister of the Navy and 
of the Colonies, His Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at .Madrid; Mr.d'Or- 
nellas and Vasconcellos, Peer of the King- 
dom, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary at, St. Petersburg; Count de 
Selir, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary at The Hague. 

His Majesty the King of Iionmania: Mr. 
Alexander Beldiman, His Envoy Extraordi- 



20681- 



-11 



162 



et Ministre plenipotentiaire a Berlin. M. 
Jean N. Papiniu, Son Envoye extraordinaire 
et Ministre plenipotentiaire a la Haye. 

Sa Majeste l'Empereur de Toutes les Hus- 
sies: Son Excellence M. le Conseiller Prive 
Actuel de£taal, Son Ambassadeur a Londres. 
M. de Martens, Membre Permanent du Con- 
seil du Ministere Imperial des Affaires Etran- 
geres, Son Conseiller Prive. Son Conseiller 
d'liltat Actuel de Basily, Chambellan, Direc- 
teur du Premier Departement du Ministere 
Imperial des Affaires £trangeres. 

Sa Majeste le Boi de Serbie: M. Miyatovitch, 
Son Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre pleni- 
potentiaire a Londres et a la Haye. 

Sa Majeste le Boi de Siam: M. PhyaSuriya 
Nuvatr, Son Envoye extraordinaire et Mi- 
nistre plenipotentiaire a St. Petersbourg et a 
Paris. M. Pbya Visuddha Suriyasakti, Son 
Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre plenipoten- 
tiaire a la Haye et a Londres. 

Sa Majeste le Boi de Suede et de Norvege: 
M. le Baron de Bildt, Son Envoye extraordi- 
naire et Ministre plenipotentiaire a Bome. 

Le Conseil Federal Suisse: M. le Dr. Arnold 
Both, Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre pleni- 
potentiaire a Berlin. 

Sa Majeste l'Empereur des Ottomans: Son 
Excellence Turkhan Pacha, Ancien Ministre 
des Affaires Etrangeres, Membre de Son Con- 
seil d'etat. Noury Bey, Secretaire-General 
au Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres. 

Son Altesse Boyale le Prince de Bulgarie: 
M. le Dr. Dimitri Stancioff, Agent Diploma- 
tique a St. Petersbourg. M. le Major Christo 
Hessaptchieff, Attache Militarie a Belgrade. 

Lesquels, apres s'etre communique leurs 
pleins pouvoirs, trouves enbon ne et due forme, 
sont convenus des dispositions suivantes: 

Article 1. 

Les batiments-hOpitaux militaires, c'est-a- 
dire les batiments construits ou amenages par 
les Etats specialement et uniquement en vue 
de porter secours aux blesses, malades et nau- 
frages, et dont les noms auront ete communi- 
ques, a l'ouverture ou au cours des hostilites, 
en tout cas ayant toute mise en usage, aux 
Puissances belligerantes, sont respectes et ne 
peuvent etre captures pendant la duree des 
hostilites. 

Ces batiments ne sont pas non plus assimiles 
aux navires de guerre au pont de vue de leur 
sejour dans un port neutre. 

Article 2. 

Les batiments hospitaliers, equipes en tota- 
lity ou en partie aux frais des particuliers ou 



nary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Berlin; 
Mr. Jean N. Papiniu, His Envoy Extraordi- 
nary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The 
Hague. 

His Majesty the Emperor of all the Bussias: 
His Excellency Mr. de Staal, Privy Councillor, 
His Ambassador at London; Mr. de Martens, 
Permanent Member of the Council of the 
Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, His 
Privy Councillor; Mr. de Basily, His Coun- 
cillor of State, Chamberlain, Director of the 
First Department of the Imperial Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs. 

His Majesty the King of Servia: Mr. Miyat- 
ovitch, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minis- 
ter Plenipotentiary at London and at The 
Hague. 

His Majesty the King of Siam: M. Phya 
Suriya Nuvatr, His Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg 
and at Paris; M. Phya Visuddha Suriyasakti, 
His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- 
potentiary at The Hague and at London. 

His Majesty the King of Sweden and Nor- 
way: Baron de Bildt, His Envoy Extraordi- 
nary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Bome. 

The Swiss Federal Council: Dr. Arnold 
Both, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary at Berlin. 

His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans: 
His Excellency Turkhan Pasha, formerly 
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Member of His 
Council of State; Noury Bey, Secretary-Gen- 
eral in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 

His Boyal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria: 
Dr. Dimitri Stancioff, Diplomatic Agent at 
St. Petersburg; Major Christo Hessaptchieff, 
Military Attache at Belgrade; 

Who, after communication of their full 
powers, found in good and due form, have 
agreed on the following provisions: 

Article I. 

Military hospita ships, tbat is to say, ships 
constructed or assigned by States specially 
and solely for the purpose of assisting the 
wounded, sick, or shipwrecked, and the names 
of which shall have been communicated to the 
belligerent Powers at the beginning or during 
the course of hostilities, and in any case before 
they are employed, shall be respected and can 
not be captured while hostilities last. 

These ships, moreover, are not on the same 
footing as men-of-war as regards their stay in 
a neutral port. 

Article II. 

Hospital ships, equipped wholly or in part 
at the cost of private individuals or officially 






163 



des socie tes de secours officiellement reconnues, 
sont egalement respectes et exempts de cap- 
ture, si la Puissance belligerante dont ils 
dependent, leur a donne une commission offi- 
cielle et an a notifie les noms a la Puissance 
adverse a l'ouverture ou au cours des hostili- 
ty, en tout cas avant toute mise en usage. 

Ces navires doivent etre porteurs d'un docu- 
ment de l'autorite competente declarant qu'ils 
ont ete soumis a son controle pendant leur 
armament et a leur depart final. 

Article 3. 

Les batiments hospitaliers, equipes en to- 
tality ou en partie aux frais des particuliers 
ou des societes officiellement reconnues de 
pays neutres, sont respectes et exempts de 
capture, si la Puissance neutre dont ils de- 
pendent leur a donne une commission offi- 
cielle et en a notifie les noms aux Puissances 
belligerantes a l'ouverture ou au cours des 
hostilites, en tout cas avant toute mise en 
usage. 

Article 4. 

Les batiments qui sontmentionnes dans les 
art. 1, 2 et 3, porteront secours et assistance 
aux blesses, malades et naufrages des bellige- 
rants sans distinction de nationality. 

Les Gouvernements s'engagent a n'utiliser 
ces batiments pour aucun but militaire. 

Ces batiments ne devront gener en aucune 
maniere les mouvements des combattants. 

Pendant et apres le combat, ils agiront a 
leurs risques et perils. 

Les belligerants auront sur eux le droit de 
controle et de visite; ils pourront refuser leur 
concours, leur enjoindre de s'eloigner, leur 
imposer une direction determinee et mettre a, 
bord un commissaire, meme les detenir, si la 
gravite des circonstances l'exigeait. 

Autant que possible, les belligerants in- 
scriront sur le journal de bord des batiments 
hospitaliers les ordres qu'ils leur donneront. 

Article 5. 

Les batiments-hopitaux militaires seront 
distingues parunepeinture exterieure blanche 
avec une bande horizontale verte d'un metres 
et demi de largeur environ. 

Les batiments qui sont mentioned dans les 
articles 2 et 3, seront distingues par une pein- 
ture exterieure blanche avec une bande hor- 
izontale rouge d'un metre et demi de largeur 
environ. 

Les embarcations des batiments qui vien- 
nent d'etre mentionnes, comme les petits bati- 
ments qui pourront etre affectes au service 
hospitalier, se distingueront par une peinture 
analogue. 



recognized relief Societies, shall likewise be 
respected and exempt from capture, provided 
the belligerent Power to whom they belong 
has given them an official commission and lias 
notified their names to the hostile Power at 
the commencement of or during hostilities, 
and in any case before they are employed. 

These ships should be furnished with a cer- 
tificate from the competent authorities, declar- 
ing that they had been under their control 
while fitting out on final departure. 

Article III. 

Hospital ships, equipped wholly or in part 
at the cost of private individuals or officially 
recognized Societies of neutral countries, shall 
be respected and exempt from capture, if the 
neutral power to whom they belong has given 
them an official commission and notified their 
names to the belligerent powers at the com- 
mencement of or during hostilities, and in 
any case before they are employed. 

Article IV. 

The ships mentioned in Articles I, II, and 
III shall afford relief and assistance to the 
wounded, sick, and shipwrecked of the bel- 
ligerents independently of their nationality. 

The governments engage not to use these 
ships for any military purpose. 

These ships must not in any way hamper 
the movements of the combatants. 

During and after an engagement they will 
act at their own risk and peril. 

The belligerents will have the right to con- 
trol and visit them; they can refuse to help 
them, order them off, make them take a cer- 
tain course, and put a commissioner on 
board; they can even detain them, if impor- 
tant circumstances require it. 

As far as possible the belligerents shall in- 
scribe in the sailing papers of the hospital- 
ships the orders they give them. 

Article V. 

The military hospital ships shall be distin- 
. guished by being painted white outside with 
a horizontal band of green about a metre am] 
a half in breadth. 

The ships mentioned in Articles II and III 
shall be distinguished by being painted white 
outside with a horizontal band of red about 
a metre and a half in breadth. 

The boats of the ships above mentioned, as 
also small craft which may be used for hos- 
pital work, shall be distinguished by similar 
painting. 



164 



Tous les batiments hospitaliers se foront All hospital ships shall make themselves 

reconnaftre en hissant, avec leur pavilion known by hoisting, together with their na- 

national, le pavilion blanc a croix rouge tional flag, the white flag, with a red cross 

prevu par la Convention de Geneve. provided by the Geneva Convention. 



Article 6. 

Les batiments de commerce, yachts ou em- 
barcations neutres, portant ou recueillant des 
blesses, des malades ou des naufrages des bel- 
ligerants, ne peuvent etre captures pour le 
fait de ce transport, mais ils restent exposes 
a la capture pour les violations de neutrality 
qu'ils pourraient avoir commises. 



Article VI. 

Neutral merchantmen, yachts, or vessels, 
having, or taking on board, sick, wounded, 
or shipwrecked of the belligerents, can not be 
captured for so doing, but they are liable to 
capture for any violation of neutrality they 
may have committed. 



Article 7. 

Le personnel religieux, medical et hospi- 
talier de tout batiment capture est inviolable 
et ne peut etre fait prisonnier de guerre. II 
emporte, en quittant le navire, les objets et 
les instruments de chirurgie qui sont sa pro- 
priete particuliere. 

Ce personnel continuera a remplir ses fonc- 
tions tant que cela sera necessaire et il 
pourra ensuite se retirer lorsque le command- 
ant en chef le jugera possible. 

Les belligerants doivent assurer a ce per- 
sonnel tombe entre leurs mains la jouissance 
integrate de son traitement. 



Article VII. 

The religious, medical, or hospital staff of 
any captured ship is inviolable, and its mem- 
bers can not be made prisoners of war. On 
leaving the ship they take with them the 
objects and surgical instruments which are 
their own private property. 

This staff shall continue to discharge its 
duties while necessary, and can afterward 
leave when the Commander in Chief consid- 
ers it possible. 

The belligerents must guarantee to the 
staff that has fallen into their hands the en- 
joyment of their salaries intact. 



Article 8. 

Les marins et les militaires embarques 
blesses ou malades, a quelque nation qu'ils 
appartiennent, seront proteges et soignes par 
les capteurs. 



Article VIII. 

Sailors and soldiers who are taken on board 
when sick or wounded, to whatever nation 
they belong, shall be protected and looked 
after by the captors. 



Article 9. 

Sont prisonniers de guerre les naufrages, 

blesses ou malades, d'un belligerant qui tom- 

bent au pouvoir de l'autre. II appartient a 

celui-ci de decider, suivant les circonstances, 

s'il convient de les garder, de les diriger sur 

un port de sa nation, sur un port neutre ou 

meme sur un port de l'adversaire. Dans ce 

dernier cas, les prisonniers ainsi rendus a leur 

pays ne pourront servir pendant la duree de 

guerre. 

Article 10. 

(Exclu.) 

Article 11. 

Les regies contenues dans les articles ci- 
dessus ne sont obligatoires que pour les Puis- 
sances contractantes, en cas de guerre entre 
deux ou plusieurs d'entre elles. 

Les dites regies cesseront d'etre obligatoires 
du moment ou, dans une guerre entre des 
Puissances contractantes, une Puissance non 
contractante se joindrait a l'un des belligerants. 



Article IX. 

The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of one of 
the belligerents who fall into the hands of the 
other, are prisoners of war. The captor must 
decide, according to circumstances, if it is best 
to keep them or send them to a port of his own 
country, to a neutral port, or even to a hostile 
port. In the last case, prisoners thus repatri- 
ated can not serve as long as the war lasts. 



Article X. 
(Excluded.) 

Article XI. 

The rules contained in the above Articles are 
binding only on the Contracting Powers, in 
case of War between two or more of them. 

The said rules shall cease to be binding from 
the time when, in a war between the Con- 
tracting Powers, one of the belligerents is 
joined by a non-Contracting Power. 



165 



Article 12. 



Article XII. 



La presente Convention sera ratifiee dans le The present Convention shall be ratified as 



plus bref delai possible. 

Les ratifications seront deposees a la Haye. 

II sera dresse du depot de chaque ratifica- 
tion un proces-verbal, dont une copie, cer- 
tificee conforme, sera remise par la voie diplo- 
matique a toutes les Puissances contractantes. 

Article 13. 

Les Puissances non signataires, qui auront 
accepte la Convention de Geneve du 22 aoiit 
1864, sont admises a adherer a, la presente 
Convention. 

Elles auront, a cet effet, a faire connaitre 
leur adhesion aux Puissances contractantes, 
au moyen d'une notification ecrite, adressee 
au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et commu- 
niquee par celui-ci a toutes les autres Puis- 
sances contractantes. 

Article 14. 

S'il arrivait qu'une des Hautes Parties con- 
tractantes denoncat la presente Convention, 
cette denonciation ne produirait ses effets 
qu'un an apres la notification faite par ecrit 
au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et comniu- 
niquee immediatement par celui-ci a toutes 
les autres Puissances contractantes. 

Cette denonciation ne produira ses effets 
qu'a l'egard de la Puissance qui l'aura notifiee. 

En foi de quoi, les Plenipotentiaires ont 
signe la presente Convention et l'ont revetue 
de leurs cachets. 

Fait a la Haye, le vingt-neuf juillet mil huit 
cent quatre-vingt dix-neuf, en un seul exem- 
plaire qui restera depose dans les archives du 
Gouvernement des Pays-Bays et dont des 
copies, certifiees conformes, seront remises 
par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances con- 
tractantes. 

Pour l'Allemagne: 
(l. s.) Munster Derneburg. 
(Sous reserve de l'article X.) 

Pour l'Autriche-Hongrie : 
(l. s.) Welsersheimb. 
(l. s.) Okolicsanyi. 

Pour la Belgique: 

(l. s.) A. Bekrnaert. 

(l. s.) Cte. de Gkelle Rogier. 

(l. s.) Ciir. Descamps. 

Pour la Chine: 
(l. s.) Yang Yu. 

Pour la Daneniark; 
(l. s.) F. Bille. 



soon as possible. 

The ratifications shall be deposited at The 
Hague. 

On the receipt of each ratification a proces- 
verbal shall be drawn up, a copy of which, 
duly certified, shall be sent through Ihe diplo- 
matic channel to all the Contracting Powers. 

Article XIII. 

The non-Signatory Powers who accepted 
the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August. 
1864, are allowed to adhere to the present 
Convention. 

For this purpose they must make their ad- 
hesion known to the Contracting Powers by 
means of a written notification addressed to 
the Netherland Government, and by it com- 
municated to all the other Contracting 
Powers. 

Article XIV. 

In the event of one of the High Contracting 
Parties denouncing the present Convention, 
such denunciation shall not take effect until 
a year after the notification made in writing 
to the Netherlands Government, and forth- 
with communicated by it to all the other 
Contracting Powers. 

This denunciation shall only affect the 
notifying Power. • 

In testimony whereof the respective Pleni- 
potentiaries have signed the present Conven- 
tion and affixed their seals thereto. 

Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in 
single copy, which shall be kept in the 
archives of the Government of the Nether- 
lands, and copies of which duly certified, 
shall be sent through the diplomatic channel 
to the Contracting Powers. 

For Germany : 
(Signed) 

(l. s.) Minster Derneburg. 
(Under reserve of Article X.) 
For Austria-Hungary : 
(Signed; 

(l. s.) Welsersheimb. 
(l. s.) Okolicsanyi. 
For Belgium: 
(Signed) 

(l. s.) A. Beernaert. 
(l. s.) Cte. de Grelle Rogier. 
(l. s.) Ciir. Descami-s. 
For China: 
(Signed | 

(l. 8.) Yam; Yu. 
For Denmark: 
(Signed) 
(i.. s.) F. Bille. 



166 



Pour l'Espagne: 
(l. s.) El Duque de Tetuan. 
(l. 8.) W. R. de Villa Urrutia. 
(l. s.) Arturo de Baguer. 

Pour leg Etats-Unis d'Amerique: 
(l. s.) Stanford Newel. 
(Sous reserve de Particle X.) 

Pour les Etats-Unis Mexicaius: 
(l. s.) A. de Mier. 
(l. s.) J. Zenil. 

Pour la France: 

(l. s.) Leon Bourgeois. 

(l. a.) G. BlHOURD. 

(l. s.) d'Estournelles de Constant. 

Pour la Grande Bretagne et I'lrlande: 
(l. s.) Henry Howard. 
(Sous reserve de Particle X.) 

Pour la Grece: 

(l. s.) N. Delyanni. 

Pour l'ltalie: 
(l. s.) Nigral 
(l. s.) A. Zannini. 

(l. s.) G. Pompilj. 

Pour le Japon:. 

(L. S.) I. MOTONO. 

Pour le Luxembourg: 
(l. s.) Eyschen. 

Pour le Montenegro: 

(l. s.) Staal. 

Pour les Pays-Bas: 

(l. s.) v. Karnebeek. 

(l. s.) den Beer Pooktugael. 

(l. s.) T. M. C. Asser. 

(l. s.) E. N. Rahusen. 

Pour la Perse: 

(l. s.) Mirza Riza Khan, Aifa-ud-Dovleh. 

Pour le Portugal: 

(l. s. ) Conde de Macedo. 

(l. s.) Agostinho d'Ornellas de Vascon- 

CELLOS. 

(l. s.) Conde de Selir. 

Pour la Roumanie: 
(l. s.) A. Beldiman. 
(l. s.) J. N. Papiniu. 



For Spain: 
(Signed) 

(l. 6.) El Duque de Tutuan. 
(l. s.) W. R. de Villa Urrutia. 

(l. s.) Arturo de Baguer. 

For the United States of America: 
(Signed) 

(l. s.) Stanford Newel. 
(Under reserve of Article X.) 

For the United Mexican States: 
(Signed) 

(l. s.) A. de Mier. 
(l. s.) J. Zenil. 

For France: 

(Signed) 

(l. s.) Leon Bourgeois. 

(l. s.) G. Bihourd. 

(l. s.) d'Estournelles de Constant. 
For Great Britain and Ireland: 

(Signed) 

(l. s.) Henry Howard. 

(Under reserve of Article X.) 

For Greece: 
(Signed) 
(l. s.) N. Delyanni. 

For Italy: 

(Signed) 

(l. s.) Nigra. 

(l. s.) A. Zannini. 

(l. s.) G. Pompilj. 
For Japan : 

(Signed) 

(l. s.) I. Montono. 
For Luxemburg: 

(Signed) 

(l. s.) Eyschen. 

For Montenegro: 
(Signed) 
(l. s.) Staal. 

For the Netherlands: 
(Signed) 

(l. s.) v. Karnebeek. 
(l. s.) den Beer Poortugael. 
(l. s.) T. M. C. Asser. 
(l. s.) E. N. Rahusen. 

For Persia: 
(Signed) 
(l. s.) Mirza Riza Khan, Arfa-ud-Doyleh. 

For Portugal: 
(Signed) 

(l. s.) Conde de Macedo. 
(l. s.) Agostinho d'Ornellas de Vascon- 

cellos. 
(l. s.) Conde de Selir. 

For Roumania: 
(Signed) 

(l. s.) A. Beldiman. 
(l. s.) J. N. Papiniu. 



167 



Pour la Russie: 
(l. s.) Staal. 
(l. s.) Martens, 
(l. s.) A. Basily. 

Pour la Serbie: 

(l. s.) Chedo Miyatovitch. 

Pour la Siam: 

(l. s.) Phya Subiya Nuvatr. 
(l. s.) Visuddha. 

Pour lets Royaumes Unis de Suede et de 
Norvege: 
(l. s.) Bildt. 

Pour la Suisse: 
(l. s.) Roth. 

Pour la Turquie: 

(l. s.) Turkhan. 

(l. s.) Mehemed Noury. 

(Sous reserve de Particle X.) 
Pour la Bulgarie: 

(l. s.) D. Stancioff. 

(l. s.) Major Hessaptchieff. 

Certifie pour copie conforme, Le Secretaire 
General du Departenient des Affaires Etran- 
gerea, L H Ruyssenaers. 

La Haye, le 31 Janvier 1900. 



For Russia: 
(Signed) (l. s.) Staal. 
(l. s.) Martens, 
(l. s.) A. Basily. 

For Servia: 

(Signed) (l. s.) Chedo Miyatovitch. 

For Siam: 

(Signed) (l. s.) Phya Suriya Nuvatr. 

(l. s.) Visuddha. 
For the United Kingdoms of Sweden and 

Norway: 

(Signed) (l. s.) Bildt. 

For Switzerland: 
(Signed) (l. s.) Roth. 

For Turkey: 

(Signed) (l. s.) Turkhan. 
(l. s.) Mehemed Noury. 

(Under reserve of Article X.) 

For Bulgaria: 

(Signed) (l. s.) D. Stancioff. 

(l. s.) Major Hessaptchieff. 

Certified as a true copy, The Secretary Gen- 
eral of the Department of Foreign Affairs. 
L. H. Ruyssenaers. 

The Hague, January 31, 1900. 



And whereas, on an understanding reached by the Government of the Netherlands with the 
signatory powers it was agreed to exclude from the ratifications of said Convention its 
Article X; 

And whereas, the said Convention, with its Article X excluded, was ratified by the Govern- 
ment of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and 
by the Governments of the other Powers aforesaid, with the exception of those of China 
and Turkey; 

And whereas, in pursuance of the stipulations of Article XII of the said Convention the 
ratifications of the said Convention were deposited at The Hague on the 4th day of September, 

1900, by the Plenipotentiaries of the Governments of the United States of America, Germany, 
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, 
Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, and Bulgaria; on the 6th 
day of October, 1900, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Japan; on the 16th day 
of October, 1900, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Montenegro; on the 29th day 
of December, 1900, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Switzerland; on the 4th 
day of April, 1901, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Greece; on the 17th day of 
April, 1901, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Mexico; on the 11th day of May, 

1901, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Servia, and on the 12th day of July, 1901 , 
by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Luxembourg : 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of 
America, have caused the said Convention, with its Article X excluded, to be made public, to 
the end that the same and every clause thereof, may be observed and fulfilled with good faith 
by the United States and the citizens thereof. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States 
to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of November, in the year of our Lord 

[l. s.] one thousand nine hundred and one, and of th« Independence of the United 
States the one hundred and twenty-sixth. 



By the President: 
John Hay, 

Secretary of State. 



Theodore Roosevelt. 







>J S 88Bii8B889 Bi 











































BBS 










'58 






























MRRg 


























BQB4